ÿWPCÑP 1³éZ>[ªõŽ"\SóUh÷˜ä}þàˆkˆë´ÐL&^ª¬ŽÞl|íDÖ†—Ì0þ'u´ñVƒx“%îùó:à’íl ñ7s¬‹“KFžig—Áš¾E é:¹r%¤â¼Á; ýÖ­! t ƒÉ†öã§èeô¡¼ç3úéf¡ûü:+IódÜüÑ$ta–Y󸤼Y'K()¼²¤`Mîír^Ì(Mna4†~nûÁ ×`mƒæ¦%ˆË§q{õ|U‘©X÷ûü[®Ù/Nô.¢´U¦I=¯t²'§9ÇÛË×>©ð±’‚ó.ÙWg<¿óý0뙲“Æ–fèãŒ; ±¯}­ïi@`os®c±¤«U ÊýµŒQÓ*âeó€V"Oާˆø—‘Å>H •ßÖšTÝú~†aÀ7¾±ä´©,ú™uu\Ÿƒ‰:éω–\‚ªuO5Ð7ùuÓh4ÁC§O¢åw±×lUÚt^+Ù*ÁÁÉYnZ´½ŽwæøØ ï–:Rùîö©0嶯‡»«¾‡«ìäNON¶{ ¨#¹„‚‰ÖÿãÇ×^#è˱ÑÇù¸í߈×KküóH—Ñxôö­ßŽOˆ8^Qð–ÝtÊs#ÉJ % 0ã 0ˆü U!N„ 0ÅÒ 0¿— zVÒÐ 0¹¢ 0­[N 0U Æ_Æ%ÆëƱ 0³wN* 0§, 0¡ÓEt 0Åv 0Ñ; 0³  0­¿ 0§l 0¡ 0›´ 0•O 0ä 0Âq 0Î3 0° 0ª± 0¤[ 0žÿ 0˜ 0’5! 0ŠÇ! 0²Q" 0¾# 0¾Á# 0>$ 0ø½$bµ% 0â½% 0âŸ& 0â' 0âc( 0âE) 0º'* 0Òá* 02³+ 0üå+ 0:á, 0Y- 0_t- 0 Ó- 0‚Ý. 0_0 B*e2 D/2 0¾2 D/Ä4 0Îó4 06Á5 0÷5 0:ÿ6 0^97 0<—7 1eÓ7 0c88U6›8 1uÑ8 72F9U>x9 0 D¶9U*ú9U,$: 0NP: 0 ëž:º‰;zC=œ½> BY?µv? 0¤+A D3ÏA D-B 0K/BszB ASíCÆ@D 0¤E 0DªE A«îEE™FU,ÞGó H2ýHî/J/JÚLLU@÷M^ 7NwCN4GN[NjN mlNlNNƒN˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»*G+G ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular*8+8 ÿÿ(_24Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*5+5 ÿÿ(_23Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt*2+2 ÿÿ(_22Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó*,+, ÿÿ(_20Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*/+/ ÿÿ(_21Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*)+) ÿÿ(_19Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó*&+& ÿÿ(_18Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó*AA ÿÿ(_17Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó*GG ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*88 ÿÿ(_15Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*55 ÿÿ(_14Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*22 ÿÿ(_13Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó*// ÿÿ(_12Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,, ÿÿ(_11Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)) ÿÿ(_10Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó(&& ÿÿ&_9Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó(AA ÿÿ&_8Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(GG ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó(88 ÿÿ&_6Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó(55 ÿÿ&_5Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó(22 ÿÿ&_4Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó(// ÿÿ&_3Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó(,, ÿÿ&_2Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó()) ÿÿ&_1Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó&&& ÿÿ$_Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó0AAÿÿ.NormalÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<AAÿÿ:Definition TÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(hhÿÿ&H1Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  ÔÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó- ù-(]]ÿÿ&H2Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H3Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H4Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H5Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔ(]]ÿÿ&H6Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó2DDÿÿ0AddressÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓòòóóÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡J<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Mô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡J<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Mô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<Ÿ§ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ  ÓÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡J<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Mô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÓ  Ó<Ûïÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€?(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡O%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Mô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó&ÿÿ  d d>)1dxd<Ûïÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€A(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡O%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Mô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó>)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡J<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡Mô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡J<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Mô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à<þ6X9`(‹Courier New3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ki)ô\  `‹&Times New Roman(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó%ä2¼A`‹Arial,ZýµAZArial (ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ(|G2Ë)$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@Å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôóEò»»Ô °Ý ƒRË)$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôóEò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIt€appears€from€information€elsewhere€in€the€record€that€the€agreement€was€that€the€sentence€initially€imposedÐ ° Ðwould€not€involve€incarceration,€although€incarceration€would€be€a€possibility€should€Campbell€violate€the€terms€of€theÐ tÄ Ðinitial€non„incarcerative€sentence. pÝ ƒRË)$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôóEò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€trial€transcript€reflects€that€the€defendant€was€found€guilty€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€However,Ð ° Ðthe€judgment€reflects€that€the€conviction€offense€was€amended€to€aggravated€robbery€by€agreement€of€the€parties. ’Ý ƒRË)$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôóEò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSee€supraóó€n.2. d «Ý ƒRË)$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôóEò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAggravated€robbery€may€be€committed€with€a€deadly€weapon,€or€it€may€involve€serious€bodily€injury€to€theÐ ° Ðvictim.€€The€indictment€alleged€that€the€crime€involved€serious€bodily€injury,€so€our€sufficiency„of„the„evidence€analysisÐ tÄ Ðextends€only€to€that€alternative.(|3Lj$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@Å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó iÝ ƒRË)$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôóEò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWhile€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€is€an€oft„raised€issue€in€motions€for€new€trial,€the€remedy€for€aÐ ° Ðconviction€premised€upon€insufficient€evidence€is€dismissal€of€the€prosecution,€rather€than€a€new€trial.^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Lj$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@Å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK ;Ý ƒRË)$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôóEò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€statute€has€since€been€amended€to€include€the€four„part€test€for€determining€whether€the€privilege€will€beÐ ° Ðenforced.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„1„201€(2000).+{è”AZ‹Arial  éÝ ƒRË)$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôóEò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThere€are€certain€exceptions,€which€are€not€pertinent€here.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„1„201(c)(2). (Ý ƒRË)$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôóEò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€argument€is€at€odds€with€the€defendantððs€contention€within€the€same€portion€of€his€brief€that€admissionÐ ° Ðof€the€letter€was€ð ðdevastating.ðð äÝ ƒRË)$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôóEò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€transcript€of€the€motion€for€new€trial€hearing€is€not€in€the€record;€to€the€extent€that€the€lower€court€mayÐ ° Ðhave€permitted€any€verbal€amendments€to€the€motion,€we€are€unaware€of€any€additional€grounds€upon€which€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendant€relied€for€his€argument€that€Mrs.€Wintersðð€prior€statement€should€have€been€excluded. ÐÝ ƒRË)$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôóEò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€the€defense€does€not€divulge€the€information€in€its€brief,€it€should€be€noted€that€Mrs.€Winters€saidÐ ° Ðon€cross„examination€that€it€was€possible€she€used€crack€cocaine€with€Campbell€after€her€release€but€that€she€did€notÐ tÄ Â Ðremember€it€and€doubted€it€because€neither€of€them€had€any€money.(ÖÃ9 Z(Times New Roman ‰¥g/Ï óbï.˜Cê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ VerniseWedemeyerDuvalCoughlin LilaStatomNorthsideDewayneRobbynincarcerative A]thad hadHargisHargisesColvin CrimBurlisonDuchacLequirereweighLiakasCoreyMickensforeseeablyThurman Odomuncompelled Evidw]here S.W.Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@Å»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼@Å»»»ÔÑ8€¹XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îJ @ÅÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼@Å»îîJ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓFebruary€25,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X¹X»¼@ÅÔÌò òÔ#†¼@Å»XX¹ÿ#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€ROBERT€MICHAEL€WINTERSòòóóÔ‡X¹X»¼@ÅÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€231247€€€€€€Rebecca€J.€Stern,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„00160„CCA„R3„CD€Ð ¥õ  ÐNovember€7,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡jX¹XXX¹ÔRobert€Michael€Winters€appeals€his€Hamilton€County€convictions€of€first„degree€murder€and€Ð xÈ  Ðaggravated€robbery€relative€to€events€which€culminated€in€the€death€of€Vernise€Sheffield,€for€whichÐ d´ Ðthe€defendant€is€serving€concurrent€sentences€of€life€with€the€possibility€of€parole€and€12€years,Ð P  Ðrespectively.€€In€this€direct€appeal,€Winters€alleges€that€his€convictions€are€unsupported€by€sufficientÐ <Œ Ðevidence,€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€instructed€the€jury€on€criminal€responsibility,€that€the€trialÐ (x Ðcourt€erroneously€admitted€a€letter€from€the€defendant€to€his€wife€which€was€properly€subject€to€theÐ d Ðmarital€communications€privilege,€and€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€admitted€a€prior€consistentÐ P Ðstatement€to€rehabilitate€a€stateððs€witness.€€Because€we€are€unconvinced€that€harmful€error€occurred,Ð ì< Ðwe€affirm€the€defendantððs€first„degree€€felony€murder€and€aggravated€robbery€convictions.€€However,Ð Ø( Ðinstructional€error€with€respect€to€the€first„degree€premeditated€murder€conviction€requires€that€weÐ Ä Ðreverse€that€count€and€remand€for€a€new€trial.Ð ° ÐÔ#†X¹XXjX¹¤#ÔÔ#†¼@Å»XX¹}#ÔÔ‡X¹X»¼@ÅÔÌÓ˜Óò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Reversed€in€Part€andÐ ˆØ ÐAffirmed€in€Part.ó óÐ tÄ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼@Å»àX¹ #ÔÔ‡X¹X.¼@ÅÔJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€óóJ.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJohn€EverettÐ L œ ÐWilliamsóó€and€òòRobert€W.€Wedemeyer,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌPhilip€L.€Duval€and€Melanie€Snipes,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Robert€MichaelÐ #`" ÐWinters.Ð ü#L# ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Peter€M.€Coughlin,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð Ô%$!% ÐWilliam€H.€Cox,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Lila€Statom€and€Dean€Ferraro,€Assistant€DistrictÐ À&"& ÐAttorneys€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÓÅ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼@Å»XX¹ô #ÔÔ‡X¹X»¼@ÅÔÐ „)Ô$) ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼@Å»XX¹#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X¹X»¼@ÅÔÔ€jX¹XXX¹Ôà  àà ` àOn€the€evening€of€April€28,€1997,€Vernise€Sheffield€was€killed€in€his€home€by€aÐ \+¬&+ Ðsingle€gunshot€wound€to€the€head.€€The€victim€was€known€to€have€weekly€held€large€amounts€of€cashÐ H,˜', Ðon€his€person€from€the€collection€of€rent€at€the€apartment€complex€he€owned.€€The€question€whetherÐ 4-„(-ý Ðthe€defendant€killed€the€victim,€either€himself€or€via€facilitation€of€his€confederates€was€resolved€byÐ ° Ðjury€verdict€against€the€defendant.Ð œì Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌà  àà ` àThe€trial€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state€demonstrated€that€at€the€timeÐ tÄ Ðof€the€crimes,€the€defendant€and€his€wife,€Trudy€Winters,€were€living€a€hand„to„mouth€existenceÐ `° Ðmarked€by€drug€abuse€and€the€quest€for€money€to€purchase€drugs.€€The€Winters€lived€in€an€efficiencyÐ L œ Ðapartment€which€they€rented€weekly€from€the€victim,€who€owned€and€resided€in€the€complex€whereÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€crimes€occurred.€€Both€the€defendant€and€his€wife€worked€at€least€sporadically€in€the€constructionÐ $ t Ðindustry.€€In€addition€to€revenues€obtained€through€construction„related€employment,€the€defendantÐ  ` Ðon€occasion€pawned€various€items€of€personalty€for€cash.€€Furthermore,€according€to€Mrs.€Winters,Ð ü L  Ðthe€couple€stole€items€from€department€stores€which€they€then€sold€for€cash.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Winters€did€not€own€an€operational€vehicle€in€late€April€1997,€and€they€reliedÐ À  Ðupon€acquaintances€to€transport€them,€among€whom€was€Bo€Campbell.€€Mr.€Campbell€periodicallyÐ ¬ü  Ðtransported€the€Winters€for€the€purpose€of€obtaining€drugs,€and€his€payment€for€providing€thisÐ ˜è  Ðservice€typically€consisted€of€a€share€of€the€drugs.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àAccording€to€Mrs.€Winters€and€Bo€Campbell,€both€of€whom€testified€for€the€state€asÐ \¬ Ðpart€of€an€agreed€disposition€of€pending€charges,€the€Winters€and€Campbell€had€agreed€to€carry€outÐ H˜ Ða€plan€whereby€the€defendant€was€to€meet€a€drug€dealer€on€the€evening€of€April€28,€1997€under€theÐ 4„ Ðpretext€of€selling€a€quantity€of€drugs€to€the€dealer€for€$3,000,€although€in€actuality€the€defendantÐ  p Ðwould€have€no€drugs€and€was€to€flee€out€the€window€of€his€apartment€with€the€money.€€By€allÐ  \ Ðaccounts,€no€such€transaction€ever€actually€took€place.Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àTrudy€Winters€provided€what€was€perhaps€the€most€damaging€testimony€against€theÐ Ð  Ðdefendant.€€She€recounted€that€on€April€28,€the€defendant€told€her€to€pack€up€their€belongings,€asÐ ¼  Ðthey€would€be€leaving€Chattanooga€after€robbing€a€drug€dealer€of€$3,000.€€After€loading€the€WintersððÐ ¨ø Ðbelongings€into€Bo€Campbellððs€van€and€injecting€cocaine,€the€Winters€and€Campbell€drove€aroundÐ ”ä Ðthat€evening€and€eventually€parked€behind€Northside€Inn,€the€apartment€complex€where€they€hadÐ €Ð Ðbeen€living.€€At€approximately€8:15€p.m.,€the€defendant€left€the€van€and€went€down€the€hill€to€theÐ l¼ Ðcomplex.€€About€8:35€p.m.,€Mrs.€Winters€heard€a€gunshot.€€She€went€down€the€hill€to€see€about€theÐ X ¨ Ðdefendant,€and€when€she€returned€to€the€van,€the€defendant€was€already€inside.€€The€trio€drove€to€aÐ D!” Ðnearby€bar,€where€the€defendant€used€a€pay€telephone.€€From€her€vantage€point€in€the€van,€Mrs.Ð 0"€  ÐWinters€saw€the€defendant€talking€on€the€phone.€€However,€she€noticed€that€he€retrieved€change€fromÐ #l! Ðthe€phone€after€the€apparent€phone€call.€€The€defendant€returned€to€the€van€and€told€Mrs.€WintersÐ $X" Ðand€Campbell€that€the€drug€dealer€was€to€meet€him€in€approximately€30€minutes.€€Campbell€gaveÐ ô$D # Ðthe€defendant€a€small€handgun.€€The€defendant€set€out€on€foot€in€the€direction€of€Northside€Inn.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àHalf€an€hour€to€45€minutes€later,€the€defendant€returned.€€€He€was€pale€and€appearedÐ ¸'#& Ðto€be€scared.€€He€gave€the€handgun€to€Campbell,€who€wiped€it€with€a€rag.€€The€defendant€had€cash,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðwhereas€he€had€not€had€any€cash€earlier€in€the€evening.€€The€trio€went€to€a€store€and€purchased€gasÐ )à$( Ðand€cigarettes.€€They€then€went€to€another€part€of€the€city€and€purchased€cocaine.€€The€WintersÐ |*Ì%) Ðdiscussed€where€they€would€spend€the€night.€€Mrs.€Winters€wanted€to€return€to€their€room€atÐ h+¸&* ÐNorthside€Inn,€but€the€defendant€was€adamant€that€he€did€not€want€to€go€there.€€Instead,€they€checkedÐ ° Ðinto€the€Cherokee€Motel.€€Campbell€came€inside€the€motel€long€enough€to€use€the€drugs€that€hadÐ œì Ðbeen€purchased,€and€then€he€left.€€Before€the€Winters€went€to€sleep€that€evening,€the€defendant€toldÐ ˆØ ÐMrs.€Winters,€ð ðNo€matter€what€happens,€just€remember€I€always€love€you.ððÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€next€morning,€Campbell€returned€to€the€Cherokee€Motel€at€6:30€or€7:00.€€AÐ L œ Ðwoman€who€Mrs.€Winters€did€not€know€accompanied€him.€€The€Winters€again€disagreed€overÐ 8 ˆ Ðwhether€they€would€return€to€Northside€Inn.€€Campbell€took€Mrs.€Winters€back€to€that€location,€andÐ $ t Ðthe€foursome€unloaded€the€Wintersðð€belongings€back€into€their€room.€€The€defendant,€who€had€notÐ  ` Ðwanted€to€return€to€Northside€Inn,€retrieved€some€leather€jackets€and€leather€boots€and€left,€sayingÐ ü L  Ðthat€he€was€going€to€pawn€the€items.€€Later€that€day,€Mrs.€Winters€paged€the€defendant,€and€whenÐ è 8  Ðshe€spoke€with€him,€she€related€that€their€landlord€had€been€shot.€€The€defendant€returned€toÐ Ô$  ÐNorthside€Inn€at€4:00€or€5:00€that€afternoon.Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àAlthough€her€extent€of€actual€involvement€was€not€clear,€Mrs.€Winters€acknowledgedÐ ˜è  Ðthat€she€and€the€defendant€had€resorted€to€forging€checks€that€had€been€stolen€from€Glenn€Lee.€€SheÐ „Ô  Ðtestified€about€one€in€particular€that€the€defendant€had€written€to€Mrs.€Winters€with€Mr.€Leeððs€forgedÐ pÀ Ðsignature,€which€the€defendant€then€had€the€victim€ð ðcash.ðð€€The€check€was€not€honored€after€theÐ \¬ Ðvictim€presented€it.€€The€defendant€told€Mrs.€Winters€that€the€victim€had€ð ðholleredðð€at€him€about€theÐ H˜ Ðcheck€bouncing.€€This€took€place€in€the€week€preceding€the€victimððs€homicide.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àMrs.€Winters€testified€that€Bo€Campbell€is€about€6'2"€or€6'3",€has€dark€skin,€and€hasÐ  \ Ðsalt„and„pepper€hair.Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àMrs.€Wintersðð€testimony€was€riddled€with€internal€inconsistencies€and€conflicted€inÐ Ð  Ðmany€respects€with€prior€statements€she€had€given€to€law€enforcement€officers.€€The€defenseÐ ¼  Ðsuccessfully€highlighted€many€of€these€variances€and€mounted€a€vigorous€attack€on€the€witnessððsÐ ¨ø Ðcredibility.€€Mrs.€Winters€admitted€that€she€had€four€prior€theft€convictions.€€Mrs.€Winters€alsoÐ ”ä Ðadmitted€that€she€was€testifying€as€part€of€an€immunity€agreement€with€the€state.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€was€the€testimony€of€Trudy€Winters,€Bo€Campbellððs€testimony€was€also€veryÐ X ¨ Ðdamaging€to€the€defense.€€He€admitted€that€he€exchanged€transportation€services€with€the€WintersÐ D!” Ðfor€drugs€and€gasoline.€€He€likewise€admitted€that€he€had€been€party€with€the€Winters€to€a€planÐ 0"€  Ðconceived€by€the€defendant€whereby€they€would€stage€a€phony€drug€transaction€in€order€to€stealÐ #l! Ð$3,000€from€the€drug€dealer.€€The€trio€would€then€take€the€money€to€Florida,€purchase€drugs,€andÐ $X" Ðreturn€to€Chattanooga€to€sell€the€drugs.€€The€plan€called€for€Campbell€and€Mrs.€Winters€to€sit€behindÐ ô$D # ÐNorthside€Inn€while€the€defendant€consummated€the€purported€transaction,€then€run€into€hisÐ à%0!$ Ðapartment€and€out€the€back€window€to€the€getaway€vehicle€in€which€Mrs.€Winters€and€CampbellÐ Ì&"% Ðwere€waiting.€€After€the€defendant€expressed€a€desire€for€a€gun,€Campbell€provided€him€with€oneÐ ¸'#& Ðwhich€he€was€keeping€for€his€sister„in„law.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àAccording€to€Campbell,€he€went€to€Northside€Inn€about€6:00€on€the€evening€of€AprilÐ |*Ì%) Ð28.€€He€and€the€Winters€loaded€the€Wintersðð€belongings€into€his€van.€€The€defendant€stayed€at€theÐ h+¸&* Ðapartment€to€call€the€drug€dealer€and€await€his€arrival,€while€Campbell€and€Mrs.€Winters€droveÐ ° Ðbehind€Northside€Inn€in€Campbellððs€van,€parked€in€a€driveway,€and€sat€and€waited.€€After€a€while,Ð œì ÐCampbell€became€concerned€that€someone€would€become€suspicious€of€them€and€call€the€authorities,Ð ˆØ Ðso€he€drove€down€the€road€and€back.€€Between€8:00€and€9:00€p.m.,€Campbell€and€Mrs.€Winters€heardÐ tÄ Ða€gunshot.€€Mrs.€Winters€was€alarmed€and€feared€that€the€defendant€had€been€shot.€€She€jumped€outÐ `° Ðof€the€van€and€ran€in€the€direction€of€Northside€Inn.€€Shortly,€as€Campbell€began€moving€the€van,Ð L œ Ðthe€defendant€and€then€Mrs.€Winters€came€up€the€hill€from€Northside€Inn.€€The€defendant€toldÐ 8 ˆ ÐCampbell€that€he€was€doing€a€trial€run€for€the€theft€from€the€drug€dealer€and€dropped€the€gun€whileÐ $ t Ðpracticing€climbing€out€his€window,€which€caused€the€gun€to€fire.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àCampbell€testified€that€the€trio€drove€to€a€nearby€tavern,€where€the€defendant€usedÐ è 8  Ðthe€phone€while€Mrs.€Winters€and€Campbell€waited€in€the€van.€€After€making€a€couple€of€phoneÐ Ô$  Ðcalls,€the€defendant€said€that€ð ðthe€guy€was€already€thereðð€and€departed€on€foot€for€Northside€InnÐ À  Ðaround€9:00€p.m.€€The€defendant€had€the€gun€with€him€when€he€left.€€Within€ten€minutes,€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendant€came€running€back.€€As€he€got€into€the€van,€the€gun€fell€on€the€floor,€and€Campbell€pickedÐ ˜è  Ðit€up.€€The€defendant€said€the€drug€dealer€had€a€second€man€with€him,€and€the€dealer€had€accusedÐ „Ô  Ðthe€defendant€of€ð ðtrying€to€rip€him€off.ðð€€The€defendant€claimed€to€have€snatched€some€cash€fromÐ pÀ Ðthe€dealerððs€hand€and€run.€€The€defendant€had€$26€or€$27,€which€he€gave€to€Mrs.€Winters.€€AtÐ \¬ Ðapproximately€9:00€or€9:15€p.m.,€they€drove€to€a€drug€house,€where€the€defendant€purchased€two€orÐ H˜ Ðthree€ð ðquartersðð€of€cocaine,€which€cost€$20€each.€€The€defendant€did€not€want€to€return€to€NorthsideÐ 4„ ÐInn€for€fear€that€the€drug€dealer€from€whom€he€had€stolen€the€money€would€be€there,€so€CampbellÐ  p Ðtook€the€Winters€to€Cherokee€Motel€at€about€10:30€or€11:00€p.m.€€The€three€went€inside€and€usedÐ  \ Ðthe€cocaine,€and€then€Campbell€departed€at€approximately€11:00€a.m.€€He€stayed€up€all€night€usingÐ øH Ðcocaine€with€Pamela€Gray,€who€is€his€cousin,€and€another€woman.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àCampbell€returned€the€following€morning€with€Ms.€Gray.€€They€took€the€defendantÐ ¼  Ðto€the€home€of€Dewayne€and€Robbyn€Lee€and€Mrs.€Winters€to€Northside€Inn,€where€CampbellÐ ¨ø Ðhelped€unload€the€Wintersðð€personal€belongings.€€That€morning,€Campbell€sold€the€handgun€that€theÐ ”ä Ðdefendant€had€used€the€previous€evening€to€Dennis€Crane.€€He€did€so€after€Ms.€Gray€ran€out€ofÐ €Ð Ðmoney.€€He€did€not€remember€whether€he€did€so€before€or€after€picking€up€the€Winters.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àCampbell€admitted€that€he€had€entered€into€an€agreement€with€the€state€whereby€heÐ D!” Ðwould€not€have€to€serve€any€incarcerative€time€for€the€victimððs€homicide€and€theft€provided€heÐ 0"€  Ðtestified€truthfully€at€the€defendantððs€trial.׃S×Ý ƒN#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€likewise€admitted€that€he€had€prior€felony€convictionsÐ #l! Ðfor€armed€robbery€and€burglary,€as€well€as€misdemeanor€theft€convictions.€€He€acknowledged€thatÐ $X" Ðhe€had€not€been€truthful€when€initially€questioned€by€law€enforcement.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àCampbell€denied€having€discussed€the€victimððs€killing€with€Pamela€Gray€on€the€dayÐ Ì&"% Ðafter€the€homicide.€€He€claimed€that€he€first€learned€of€the€victimððs€death€on€the€day€following€theÐ ¸'#& Ðcrime€when€he€was€visiting€Crystal€and€David€Graham,€who€told€him€that€the€man€who€ownedÐ ° ÐNorthside€Inn€had€been€shot.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àPamela€Gray€confirmed€Campbellððs€testimony€that€the€two€had€been€up€all€nightÐ tÄ Ðusing€cocaine€during€the€late€evening€of€April€28€and€early€morning€of€April€29.€€She€recounted€thatÐ `° Ðshe€and€Campbell€picked€up€the€Winters€on€April€29€and€took€them€to€a€residence.€€The€Winters€hadÐ L œ Ða€disagreement,€and€they€took€Mrs.€Winters€to€Northside€Inn.€€She€confirmed€that€she€was€with€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendant€when€they€sold€a€gun€to€Dennis€Crane€on€the€morning€of€April€29.€€The€stateððs€questioningÐ $ t Ðof€Ms.€Gray€about€what€Campbell€told€her€about€the€crime€was€not€clear.€€It€went€as€follows:Ð  ` ÐÌà  àState:à0 ` à[A]t€any€point€that€morning,€did€he€tell€you€about€any€sort€of€plan€that€he,€TrudyÐ è 8  ÐWinters€and€Rob€Winters€had€had?ÐÔ$ ` (#` (# Ðà  àAà0 ` àThat€morning?ÐÀ ` (#` (# Ðà  àQà0 ` àDid€he€tell€you€what€they€had€done?Ьü ` (#` (# Ðà  àAà0 ` àYes.Иè ` (#` (# Ðà  àQà0 ` àWhat€did€he€tell€you€.€.€.€had€happened?Ð„Ô ` (#` (# Ðà  àAà0 ` àHe€says€that€guy,€Robert€Michael€Winters,€had€gone€in€and€was€supposedly€going€toÐ pÀ Ðrob€him€to€get€enough€money€to€get€a€large€amount€of€cocaine€in€Florida,€thatððs€whyÐ \¬ Ðthey€had€the€stuff€in€the€van.ÐH˜` (#` (# Ðà  à.€.€.€[objection€to€question€and€ruling€thereon]Ð 4„ Ðà  àQà0 ` àHad€your€cousin€told€you€the€individual€that€they€were€going€to€robbed,€[sic]€had€heÐ  p Ðidentified€him?Ð \` (#` (# Ðà  àAà0 ` àYes,€maððam.€€Well,€he€said€it€was€an€older€white€man€and€that€was€the€same€placeÐ øH Ðthat€we€took€that€lady€back€to€in€her€apartment€and€thatððs€where€it€was€supposed€toÐ ä4 Ðgo€down€at,€you€know.ÐÐ ` (#` (# Ðà  àQà0 ` àSo€that€morning€he€had€told€you.€€Do€you€recall€what€time€it€was,€that€it€was€that€heÐ ¼  Ðtold€you€that€the€plan€was€to€rob€a€black€man?Шø` (#` (# Ðà  àAà0 ` àYes,€maððam,€it€was€early€that€morning€I€would€say€between€8€and€9€oððclock.Дä` (#` (# ÐÌMs.€Gray€also€recounted€that€Campbell€said,€ð ðI€hope€that€old€man€didnððt€get€killed,ðð€referring€to€ð ðanÐ l¼ Ðolder€white€man.ððÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àEmma€Hargis€testified€that€she€lived€at€Northside€Inn€in€April€1997.€€Her€residenceÐ 0"€  Ðwas€one„half€of€a€house€trailer,€and€the€victim€lived€in€the€other€half.€€At€about€5:30€p.m.€on€AprilÐ #l! Ð28,€Ms.€Hargis€saw€the€victim€talking€to€someone€unknown€to€her.€€€The€person€was€on€the€victimððsÐ $X" Ðclosed„in€porch,€and€they€were€arguing€about€money.€€It€appeared€that€the€person€was€forcing€himselfÐ ô$D # Ðor€herself€into€the€area€where€the€victim€was.€€The€person€was€approximately€6'1"€with€sandy€blondÐ à%0!$ Ðhair.€€She€assumed€but€was€not€sure€that€the€person€was€a€man.€€He€or€she€was€in€a€white€car€and€hadÐ Ì&"% Ða€dark„haired€passenger.€€About€two€or€two€and€a€half€months€later,€Ms.€Hargis€played€pool€with€theÐ ¸'#& Ðpassenger€in€a€bar.€€By€reference€to€a€mug€shot€of€Bo€Campbell,€she€positively€identified€him€as€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðperson€she€saw€arguing€with€the€victim€on€April€28.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àAround€8:00€or€8:15€p.m.€on€April€28,€Ms.€Hargis€heard€the€victim€moving€aroundÐ ° Ðâ âhis€side€of€the€trailer.€€She€heard€a€gunshot€about€9:45.€€She€then€heard€noises€that€sounded€likeÐ œì Ðsomeone€rearranging€furniture.€€After€the€gunshot,€Ms.€Hargisðð€husband,€Timothy,€went€outside€toÐ ˆØ Ðlook€around.€€When€he€returned€he€was€shaken€and€stuttering.€€As€a€result€of€a€conversation€she€hadÐ tÄ Ðwith€her€husband€after€he€returned,€Ms.€Hargis€did€not€go€to€the€police,€although€she€did€talk€to€themÐ `° Ðthe€next€day€when€they€were€on€the€scene€investigating€the€homicide.€€Shortly€after€11:00€that€night,Ð L œ Ðthe€television€in€the€victimððs€residence€got€very€loud,€and€Mr.€Hargis€went€outside€a€second€time.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àRobbyn€Lee€testified€that€she€had€seen€the€defendant€in€her€home€briefly€about€6:00Ð  ` Ða.m.€on€April€29.€€He€returned€with€Mrs.€Winters€later€that€afternoon.€€A€day€or€two€later,€theÐ ü L  ÐWinters€came€to€Ms.€Leeððs€home€and€instigated€a€confrontation€over€$20€the€Winters€claimed€Ms.Ð è 8  ÐLee€owed€them.€€Ultimately,€Ms.€Lee€summoned€the€authorities,€and€when€they€arrived,€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant€fled€on€foot.€€While€seated€in€a€police€vehicle,€Mrs.€Winters€threatened€the€lives€of€Ms.Ð À  ÐLee€and€her€child.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€individual€identified€by€Mrs.€Winters€as€the€drug€dealer€she,€the€defendant,€andÐ „Ô  ÐCampbell€planned€to€rob€testified€for€the€state.€€He€denied€any€involvement€in€the€drug€trade.€€HeÐ pÀ Ðmet€the€defendant€through€the€defendantððs€brother,€and€the€defendant€did€some€construction€workÐ \¬ Ðfor€him.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àDetective€Charles€Dudley€of€the€Chattanooga€Police€Department€testified€that€heÐ  p Ðinterviewed€the€defendant€a€few€days€after€the€crime€when€the€defendant€was€apprehended€followingÐ  \ Ðhis€flight€from€officers€who€responded€to€the€altercation€at€Robbyn€Leeððs€house.€€The€defendant€toldÐ øH ÐDet.€Dudley€that€on€the€night€of€the€crime,€he€and€his€wife€had€been€out€drinking€and€spent€the€nightÐ ä4 Ðin€a€motel.€€When€Mrs.€Winters€was€interviewed,€she€said€that€she€had€been€out€drinking€with€herÐ Ð  Ðhusband,€Campbell,€and€some€other€individuals.€€She€claimed€that€they€spent€the€night€at€NorthsideÐ ¼  ÐInn.€€When€the€defendant€was€informed€that€his€wife€had€given€a€version€of€events€inconsistent€withÐ ¨ø Ðhis€own,€he€invoked€his€Fifth€Amendment€rights.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àDetective€Dudley€recounted€that€he€had€received€a€lead€from€a€resident€of€NorthsideÐ l¼ ÐInn€that€a€resident€other€than€the€defendant€had€been€seen€knocking€on€the€victimððs€door€about€9:15Ð X ¨ Ðor€9:30€on€April€28.€€Shortly€thereafter,€the€citizen€informant€heard€an€argument€followed€by€aÐ D!” Ðgunshot.€€The€informant€described€the€individual€he€had€seen€as€being€about€6'€tall,€skinny,€dirtyÐ 0"€  Ðlooking,€and€having€brownish„black€hair.€€Det.€Dudley€interviewed€the€individual€identified,€and€thatÐ #l! Ðperson€had€an€alibi€that€Det.€Dudley€was€able€to€confirm.€€Likewise,€this€personððs€apartment€wasÐ $X" Ðsearched,€and€no€evidence€of€the€crime€was€discovered.€€Thus,€that€person€was€eliminated€as€aÐ ô$D # Ðsuspect.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àAccording€to€Det.€Dudley,€the€defendant€consented€to€a€search€of€his€apartment.€€TheÐ ¸'#& Ðofficers€recovered€some€pawn€tickets€and€two€checks€written€to€the€defendant€and€his€wife€on€GlennÐ ¤(ô#' ÐLeeððs€account.€€The€officers€also€observed€that€the€Wintersðð€belongings€were€packed€in€boxes.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àGlenn€Lee€testified€that€three€unsigned€checks€had€been€taken€from€his€checkbookÐ ° Ðâ âwithout€his€knowledge€at€the€time.€€He€testified€that€he€kept€the€checks€in€the€vehicle€in€which€heÐ œì Ðsometimes€transported€the€Winters,€and€the€only€other€individual€who€was€in€this€vehicle€during€theÐ ˆØ Ðrelevant€time€period€was€his€son.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àAccording€to€the€medical€examiner,€the€victim€died€from€a€gunshot€wound€to€the€headÐ L œ Ðone€to€two€hours€after€eating€his€last€meal€on€the€evening€of€April€28.€€An€individual€would€remainÐ 8 ˆ Ðconscious€for€no€more€than€a€few€seconds€after€receiving€an€injury€of€the€type€the€victim€sustained.€Ð $ t ÐA€family€member€of€the€victim€testified€that€the€victim€ate€dinner€with€him€and€finished€eating€atÐ  ` Ðapproximately€8:00.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àTestimony€from€multiple€witnesses€established€that€the€victim€had€a€.22€caliberÐ Ô$  Ðhandgun.€€This€weapon€was€not€found€by€the€investigating€officers€who€responded€to€the€scene,Ð À  Ðalthough€.22€caliber€ammunition€was€found.€€Furthermore,€the€victimððs€wallet€was€not€discovered.Ð ¬ü  ÐThere€was€no€sign€of€forced€entry€to€the€victimððs€home.€€According€to€multiple€witnesses,€the€victimÐ ˜è  Ðkept€his€doors€locked.€€There€was€likewise€no€sign€of€a€struggle.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àBy€stipulation,€the€jury€was€informed€that€there€was€scientific€evidence€that€a€.25Ð \¬ Ðcaliber€cartridge€casing€found€at€the€scene€was€fired€from€a€weapon€identified€by€Bo€Campbell€asÐ H˜ Ðbeing€the€handgun€he€had€provided€to€the€defendant.€€Likewise,€a€.25€caliber€bullet€recovered€fromÐ 4„ Ðthe€victimððs€body€ð ðwas€probably€firedðð€from€that€recovered€weapon.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àTo€counter€the€stateððs€proof,€the€defendant€offered€evidence€which€he€contendedÐ øH Ðsupported€his€defense€theory€that€Bo€Campbell€was€the€actual€killer€and€that€the€defendantððs€wifeÐ ä4 Ðwas€helping€frame€the€defendant€for€the€crime.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àWilma€Crane€testified€that€she€knew€Bo€Campbell€because€he€came€to€her€home€andÐ ¨ø Ðsold€things€to€her€husband€from€time€to€time.€€On€one€such€occasion,€he€came€to€the€Crane€homeÐ ”ä Ðwith€Pamela€Gray€and€sold€a€gun€to€Mr.€Crane.€€The€witness€had€seen€Campbell€driving€a€white€carÐ €Ð Ðon€occasion,€which€he€said€was€his€daughterððs€car.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendantððs€proof€also€included€the€testimony€of€Michael€Smith,€a€resident€ofÐ D!” ÐNorthside€Inn€in€April€1997.€€Smith€had€been€a€suspect€in€the€case,€but€the€authorities€eventuallyÐ 0"€  Ðeliminated€him.€€After€the€victimððs€killing,€he€rented€the€trailer€in€which€the€victim€and€the€HargisesÐ #l! Ðhad€lived.€€While€removing€the€partition€between€the€two€sides€of€the€trailer,€he€observed€that€it€wasÐ $X" Ðvery€thin€and€that€sound€traveled€freely€through€it.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àBrenda€Colvin,€who€lived€at€Northside€Inn€in€April€1997,€testified€that€she€heard€aÐ Ì&"% Ðloud,€popping€noise€coming€from€the€direction€of€the€victimððs€residence€after€about€11:00€or€11:30Ð ¸'#& Ðon€the€evening€of€April€28.€€The€following€morning,€she€left€for€work€at€7:10€to€7:15,€and€she€sawÐ ¤(ô#' Ða€small€to€medium€white€Pontiac€or€Chevrolet€in€front€of€the€victimððs€apartment.€€When€she€openedÐ )à$( Ðher€door,€the€car€sped€off.€€The€driver€was€small,€and€he€wore€his€long,€dark€hair€in€a€ponytail.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àMichelle€Dykes€testified€that€Mrs.€Winters€worked€for€her€cleaning€houses.€€Mrs.Ð ° ÐWinters€was€always€desperate€for€money€and€frequently€sought€advances€on€her€wages.€€Ms.€DykesÐ œì Ðtestified€that€Mrs.€Winters€had€been€angry€at€the€victim€because€the€Wintersðð€rent€had€been€overpaid,Ð ˆØ Ðand€the€victim€would€not€refund€the€amount€of€the€overpayment.€€Ms.€Dykes€thought€that€sheÐ tÄ Ðwitnessed€a€confrontation€between€the€victim€and€Mrs.€Winters€over€this€matter€on€two€separateÐ `° Ðoccasions.€€While€angry€over€the€financial€disagreement€with€the€victim,€Mrs.€Winters€said,€ð ðIððmÐ L œ Ðgoing€to€kill€that€SOB.ðð€€On€one€particular€occasion€when€Ms.€Dykes€was€driving€Mrs.€WintersÐ 8 ˆ Ðhome,€they€saw€someone€Mrs.€Winters€called€Bo,€who€Mrs.€Winters€motioned€to€pull€over.€€Mrs.Ð $ t ÐWinters€got€in€the€car€with€Bo€after€telling€Ms.€Dykes€that€Bo€was€ð ðwho€she€got€her€stuff€fromðð€andÐ  ` Ðshe€did€not€want€her€husband€to€see€her€with€Bo.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€the€defendant€took€the€stand.€€He€testified€that€in€April€1997,€he€was€5'7.5"Ð Ô$  Ðor€5'8"€tall€and€weighed€135€pounds.€€At€that€time,€he€had€gray€hair€which€rested€on€his€shoulders.€Ð À  ÐHe€characterized€his€relationship€with€the€victim€as€a€positive€one€and€denied€that€he€had€ever€hadÐ ¬ü  Ðan€argument€with€him.€€He€acknowledged€that€he€and€his€wife€had€fallen€behind€in€paying€rent€atÐ ˜è  Ðtimes,€but€he€said€the€victim€had€always€let€them€make€it€up.€€He€further€acknowledged€that€theÐ „Ô  Ðvictim€had€left€a€note€on€his€door€during€the€last€week€of€April€that€the€Winters€must€pay€rent€orÐ pÀ Ðmove€out,€and€he€had€discussed€this€matter€with€the€victim.€€The€defendant€had€given€the€victim€oneÐ \¬ Ðof€Glenn€Leeððs€forged€checks€and€asked€the€victim€to€hold€it€until€Friday,€the€day€rent€was€due€andÐ H˜ Ðthe€day€the€defendant€would€be€paid.€€The€defendant€intended€that€the€victim€not€deposit€the€check.€Ð 4„ ÐThe€victim€had€offered€to€excuse€rent€payment€if€the€defendant€would€work€on€a€four€wheeler€forÐ  p Ðhim.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€admitted€that€he€and€his€wife€were€using€drugs€during€the€timeÐ ä4 Ðpreceding€the€victimððs€homicide,€but€he€minimized€his€own€drug€use€and€said€that€he€suspected€hisÐ Ð  Ðwifeððs€use€was€more€extensive€than€his€own.€€He€said€that€Bo€Campbell€would€buy€drugs€for€them.€Ð ¼  ÐHe€suspected€that€his€wife€had€a€relationship€with€Campbell€because€he€found€them€alone€togetherÐ ¨ø Ðin€the€apartment€smoking€crack€cocaine.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àAccording€to€the€defendant,€he€and€his€wife€went€to€a€tavern€at€3:00€or€4:00€p.m.€andÐ l¼ Ðdrank€alcoholic€beverages.€€Mrs.€Winters€wanted€some€cocaine,€so€Mr.€Winters€paged€Campbell,Ð X ¨ Ðwho€arrived,€collected€money€from€the€defendant,€and€returned€later€with€the€drugs.€€The€three€wentÐ D!” Ðto€Northside€Inn€to€get€high;€Campbell€left,€and€the€Winters€returned€to€the€tavern.€€Desiring€moreÐ 0"€  Ðdrugs,€the€defendant€paged€Campbell€again€and€gave€him€$40€when€he€arrived.€€Campbell€departedÐ #l! Ðto€procure€drugs,€and€the€defendant€went€to€Northside€Inn€to€check€on€his€dog€and€change€his€shirt.€Ð $X" ÐWhile€at€Northside€Inn,€the€defendant€decided€to€knock€on€the€victimððs€door€to€see€whether€he€couldÐ ô$D # Ðuse€the€victimððs€telephone,€but€no€one€answered.€€The€defendant€returned€to€the€tavern.€€CampbellÐ à%0!$ Ðreturned,€as€well,€and€did€not€have€any€drugs.€€The€three€left€the€bar,€went€to€get€gas€and€cigarettes,Ð Ì&"% Ðand€then€went€to€a€location€near€the€Cherokee€Motel€to€get€drugs.€€They€then€checked€into€theÐ ¸'#& ÐCherokee€Motel€and€got€high.€€Campbell€left€unexpectedly.€€The€next€morning,€the€defendant€pagedÐ ¤(ô#' ÐCampbell€repeatedly€until€Campbell€arrived€to€pick€the€Winters€up.€€Campbell€took€them€to€the€LeeÐ )à$( Ðâ âresidence€so€that€the€defendant€could€ask€Glenn€Lee€to€loan€him€$20.€€Campbell€then€took€theÐ |*Ì%) ÐWinters€to€Northside€Inn.€€The€defendant€gathered€some€of€their€belongings€and€walked€to€a€pawnÐ ° Ðshop,€where€he€obtained€$40€for€the€items.€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€flatly€denied€that€he€had€been€part€of€a€plan€with€his€wife€andÐ tÄ ÐCampbell€to€rob€a€drug€dealer.€€He€likewise€denied€that€he€had€killed€the€victim,€and€he€deniedÐ `° Ðknowing€who€had€done€so.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€claimed€that€when€his€apartment€was€searched€by€the€authorities,€theÐ $ t Ðboxes€of€clothing€they€discovered€were€the€mechanism€the€Winters€used€for€storing€these€items€dueÐ  ` Ðto€inadequate€storage€space€in€the€apartment.€€He€denied€that€the€belongings€had€been€loaded€andÐ ü L  Ðunloaded€in€and€out€of€Campbellððs€van€as€part€of€a€plan€to€go€to€Florida.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àTo€explain€his€flight€from€the€authorities€at€Robbyn€Leeððs€home€in€the€days€followingÐ À  Ðthe€homicide,€he€claimed€that€after€he€gave€the€police€his€identification€he€heard€a€ð ð10„7"€on€theÐ ¬ü  Ðradio€and€knew€that€he€would€be€taken€into€custody€for€an€outstanding€Virginia€warrant.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€acknowledged€having€forged€two€of€the€three€checks€drawn€on€theÐ pÀ Ðbank€account€of€Glenn€Lee.€€He€admitted€knowing€that€he€was€breaking€the€law€when€he€forged€theÐ \¬ Ðchecks.Ð H˜ Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€was€questioned€about€a€letter€he€wrote€to€his€wife€while€he€was€in€jailÐ  p Ðawaiting€trial.€€The€letter€itself€had€been€received€into€evidence€during€the€stateððs€case„in„chief.€€TheÐ  \ Ðletter€is€lengthy.€€Its€primary€topic€is€the€murder€prosecution€of€the€defendant.€€In€it,€the€defendantÐ øH Ðrecites€extensive€factual€information€regarding€the€crime,€which€the€state€contended€was€an€effortÐ ä4 Ðby€the€defendant€to€tell€his€wife€what€to€say€to€the€authorities€if€questioned€and€how€to€testify€at€trial.€Ð Ð  ÐThe€defendant€claimed,€however,€that€this€recitation€was€to€acquaint€his€wife€with€the€informationÐ ¼  Ðcontained€in€discovery€materials€that€the€defense€had€received€from€the€state€and€that€he€was€notÐ ¨ø Ðtrying€to€tell€her€what€to€say.€€The€letter€also€contains€references€to€the€defendantððs€love€for€his€wifeÐ ”ä Ðand€to€their€wedding€vows.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€receiving€the€evidence,€the€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€premeditatedÐ X ¨ Ðmurder,€felony€murder,€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€The€court€accepted€the€verdict€andÐ D!” Ðmerged€the€two€murder€counts.€€The€defendant€was€sentenced€to€life€for€the€murder€conviction€andÐ 0"€  Ð12€years€for€the€robbery,׃T×Ý ƒN#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€with€the€sentences€to€be€served€concurrently.Ð #l! ÐÌà@ÅÅ*ìàò òIˆÐ ô$D # Ðó óÌà  àà ` àIn€three€interrelated€issues,€the€defendant€challenges€(1)€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€hisÐ Ì&"% Ðmotion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€and€motion€for€new€trial,€(2)€the€jury€verdict€as€being€contrary€toÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€weight€of€the€evidence,€and€(3)€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€The€thrust€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefendantððs€argument€relative€to€all€of€these€issues€is€that€he€should€not€have€been€found€guilty€onÐ ° Ðthe€evidence€presented€and€the€trial€judge€erred€in€accepting€the€verdict.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€begin€with€the€defendantððs€claim€that€the€verdict€is€contrary€to€the€weight€of€theÐ tÄ Ðevidence,€or€in€other€words,€the€trial€judge€should€not€have€accepted€the€verdict.€€Rule€33(f)€of€theÐ `° ÐRules€of€Criminal€Procedure€imposes€a€mandatory€duty€on€the€trial€judge€to€serve€as€the€thirteenthÐ L œ Ðjuror€in€every€criminal€case.€€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€896€S.W.2d€119,€122€(Tenn.€1995).€€Under€the€Rule,Ð 8 ˆ Ðthe€judge€is€empowered€to€grant€a€new€trial€if€he€disagrees€with€the€jury€about€the€weight€of€theÐ $ t Ðevidence.€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€33(f).€ð ðRule€33(f)€does€not€require€the€trial€judge€to€make€an€explicitÐ  ` Ðstatement€on€the€record.€€Instead,€when€the€trial€judge€simply€overrules€a€motion€for€new€trial,€anÐ ü L  Ðappellate€court€may€presume€that€the€trial€judge€has€served€as€the€thirteenth€juror€and€approved€theÐ è 8  Ðjury's€verdict.ðð€€òòCarteróó,€896€S.W.2d€at€122.€€Only€if€the€record€contains€statements€by€the€trial€judgeÐ Ô$  Ðindicating€disagreement€with€the€jury's€verdict€or€evidencing€the€trial€judge's€refusal€to€act€as€theÐ À  Ðthirteenth€juror€may€an€appellate€court€reverse€the€trial€court's€judgment.€€òòId.óó€€Otherwise,€appellateÐ ¬ü  Ðreview€is€limited€to€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€pursuant€to€Rule€13(e)€of€the€Rules€of€AppellateÐ ˜è  ÐProcedure.€€òòState€v.€Burlisonóó,€868€S.W.2d€713,€718-19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€If€the€reviewingÐ „Ô  Ðcourt€finds€that€the€trial€judge€has€failed€to€fulfill€her€role€as€thirteenth€juror,€the€reviewing€courtÐ pÀ Ðmust€grant€a€new€trial.€€òòState€v.€Moatsóó,€906€S.W.2d€431€(Tenn.€1995).Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€record€before€us€indicates€that€the€trial€judge€explicitly€discharged€her€duty€asÐ 4„ Ðthirteenth€juror€and€announced€her€agreement€with€the€verdict€returned.€€In€this€situation,€we€mayÐ  p Ðnot€second„guess€her€ruling.€€òòSee€Burlisonóó,€868€S.W.2d€718„19.€€As€stated€above,€we€are€limited€toÐ  \ Ða€review€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€òòSee€id.óóÐ øH ÐÌà  àà ` àòòóóThe€question€of€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€encompasses€not€only€theÐ Ð  Ðdefendantððs€appellate€challenge€to€that€issue,€but€his€challenge€to€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€theÐ ¼  Ðmotion€for€judgment€of€acquittal,€as€well.€€This€is€because€the€standard€by€which€we€review€a€lowerÐ ¨ø Ðcourtððs€ruling€on€a€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€is€analogous€to€the€standard€employed€whenÐ ”ä Ðreviewing€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€after€a€conviction€has€been€imposed.€€òòSee€StateÐ €Ð Ðv.€Ballóó,€973€S.W.2d€288,€292€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998);€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€916€S.W.2d€471,€473€(Tenn.Ð l¼ ÐCrim.€App.€1995).Ð X ¨ ÐÌÔ‡PXgî XXjX¹Ôà  àà ` àÔ#†jX¹X XPXg#ÔTo€that€end,€when€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€an€appellateÐ 0"€  Ðcourt's€standard€of€review€is€whether,€after€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€toÐ #l! Ðthe€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyondÐ $X" Ða€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€324,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2791-92€(1979);€òòStateÐ ô$D # Ðv.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€applies€to€findingsÐ à%0!$ Ðof€guilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€andÐ Ì&"% Ðcircumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),€òòoverruledÐ ¸'#& Ðon€other€grounds€by€State€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1,€8€(Tenn.€2000).€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àMoreover,€a€criminal€offense€may€be€established€exclusively€by€circumstantialÐ |*Ì%) Ðevidence.€€òòDuchac€v.€Stateóó,€505€S.W.2d€237€(Tenn.€1973);€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€901€S.W.2d€393,€396Ð h+¸&* Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Lequireóó,€634€S.W.2d€608€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€However,Ð ° Ðbefore€an€accused€may€be€convicted€of€a€criminal€offense€based€upon€circumstantial€evidence€alone,Ð œì Ðthe€facts€and€circumstances€ð ðmust€be€so€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€every€other€reasonableÐ ˆØ Ðhypothesis€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant.ðð€€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€225€Tenn.€478,€482,€470€S.W.2d€610,Ð tÄ Ð612€(1971);€òòJonesóó,€901€S.W.2d€at€396.€€In€other€words,€ð ð[a]€web€of€guilt€must€be€woven€around€theÐ `° Ðdefendant€from€which€he€cannot€escape€and€from€which€facts€and€circumstances€the€jury€could€drawÐ L œ Ðno€other€reasonable€inference€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòCrawfordóó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð470€S.W.2d€at€613;€òòState€v.€€McAfeeóó,€737€S.W.2d€304,€305€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€should€not€reweigh€orÐ ü L  Ðreevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ð è 8  ÐQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€wellÐ Ô$  Ðas€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571Ð À  ÐS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theÐ ¬ü  Ðtrier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€òò€Liakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956);òòÐ ˜è  ÐFarmer€v.€Stateóó,€574€S.W.2d€49,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€On€the€contrary,€this€court€mustÐ „Ô  Ðafford€the€State€of€Tennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€recordÐ pÀ Ðas€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€Ð \¬ ÐòòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€evidence€against€the€defendant€was€entirely€circumstantial,€and€the€stateððs€caseÐ  p Ðagainst€him€rested€in€large€part€on€the€testimony€of€Trudy€Winters€and€Bo€Campbell.€€On€appeal,€theÐ  \ Ðdefendant€asks€us€to€discredit€the€juryððs€factual€findings€regarding€the€credibility€of€these€twoÐ øH Ðwitnesses€as€well€as€Pamela€Gray.€€However,€the€law€does€not€allow€us€to€bypass€the€juryððs€findingsÐ ä4 Ðon€issues€of€witness€credibility€simply€because€the€evidence€is€capable€of€supporting€a€differentÐ Ð  Ðconclusion.€€òòSee€id.óóà ¸ àà  àà h àÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendantððs€convictions€are€of€first„degree€premeditated€murder,€felony€murderÐ ”ä Ðin€the€perpetration€of€robbery,€and€aggravated€robbery.׃U×Ý ƒN#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€theÐ €Ð Ðevidence€shows€that€the€defendant,€Trudy€Winters,€and€Bo€Campbell€formulated€a€plan€whereby€theÐ l¼ Ðdefendant€would€steal€$3,000€from€a€drug€dealer.€€Campbell€provided€the€defendant€with€a€weapon.€Ð X ¨ ÐRather€than€robbing€the€drug€dealer,€the€defendant€shot€and€killed€his€landlord€and€stole€money€fromÐ D!” Ðhim.€€Mrs.€Winters€and€Campbell€were€waiting€nearby,€and€Campbell€provided€transportation€awayÐ 0"€  Ðfrom€the€scene€of€the€crime.€€Campbell€also€disposed€of€the€murder€weapon€by€selling€it€to€anotherÐ #l! Ðindividual.€€One€of€the€victimððs€tenants€saw€the€defendant€knocking€on€the€victimððs€door€around€theÐ $X" Ðtime€of€the€crime.€€The€defendant€had€no€money€before€going€to€Northside€Inn€around€the€time€thatÐ ô$D # Ðthe€victim€was€killed;€he€had€cash€in€his€hand€when€he€returned.€€Campbell€told€his€cousin€theÐ à%0!$ Ðmorning€after€the€crime€that€the€defendant€claimed€that€the€gun€had€accidentally€discharged€whenÐ Ì&"% Ðhe€fell€out€a€window;€Campbell€said€that€he€hoped€the€defendant€had€not€shot€and€killed€ð ðthe€oldÐ ¸'#& Ðman.ðð€€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÐ )à$( Ðà  àà ` àWhen€viewed€in€this€light,€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€defendantððsÐ ° Ðconviction€of€aggravated€robbery.€€In€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€shows€thatÐ œì Ðthe€defendant€committed€an€intentional€or€knowing€theft€from€Vernise€Sheffield€by€violence€orÐ ˆØ Ðputting€the€victim€in€fear,€and€the€victim€suffered€serious€bodily€injury.׃W×Ý ƒN#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€evidence€is€more€thanÐ tÄ Ðsufficient€to€support€an€aggravated€robbery€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„402€(1997)Ð `° Ð(aggravated€robbery).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€evidence€likewise€supports€the€felony€murder€conviction.€€Considering€theÐ $ t Ðevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€defendant€killed€the€victim€in€the€course€ofÐ  ` Ðperpetrating€a€robbery.€€òòSee€id.óó€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2)€(1997)€(amended€1998,€2002)€(felony€murder).Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€are€unpersuaded,€however,€that€the€evidence€sufficiently€supports€the€defendantððsÐ Ô$  Ðguilt€of€first„degree€premeditated€murder.€€That€crime€is€ð ð[a]€premeditated€and€intentional€killing€ofÐ À  Ðanother[.]ðð€òò€Id.óó€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(Supp.€2002).€€Even€when€considered€in€the€light€most€favorableÐ ¬ü  Ðto€the€state,€the€evidence€does€not€demonstrate€that€the€homicide€was€a€premeditated€one.€€Once€theÐ ˜è  Ðevidence€establishes€that€a€homicide€has€occurred,€it€is€presumed€to€be€second„degree€murder.€€òòStateÐ „Ô  Ðv.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€To€elevate€the€crime€to€the€greater€offense€ofÐ pÀ Ðfirst„degree€murder,€the€state€must€prove€premeditation€or€that€the€crime€was€committed€in€theÐ \¬ Ðperpetration€of€one€of€a€specific€group€of€felonies.€€òòSee€id.€€óóIn€this€case,€the€state€has€not€carried€thatÐ H˜ Ðburden€as€to€premeditation.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àPremeditation€may€be€inferred€from€circumstances€surrounding€the€killing.€€òòState€v.Ð  \ ÐCoulteróó,€67€S.W.3d€3,€72€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001).€€Such€circumstances€may€include€ð ða€defendant'sÐ øH Ðuse€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€an€unarmed€victim;€the€cruelty€of€the€killing;€declarations€by€aÐ ä4 Ðdefendant€of€an€intent€to€kill;€the€defendantððs€procurement€of€a€weapon;€a€defendantððs€preparationsÐ Ð  Ðprior€to€a€killing€for€concealment€of€the€crime;€and€calmness€immediately€after€the€killing.ðð€€òòId.óó€Ð ¼  ÐThere€is€evidence€in€this€case€of€weapon€procurement.€€With€respect€to€whether€the€victim€wasÐ ¨ø Ðunarmed,€there€is€no€evidence€of€a€weapon€being€recovered€from€the€person€of€the€victim;€however,Ð ”ä Ða€handgun€which€he€was€known€to€carry€in€his€pocket€was€never€recovered.€€There€is€no€evidenceÐ €Ð Ðthat€the€defendant€was€calm€after€returning€from€Northside€Inn;€in€fact,€he€was€shaken€and€pale.€Ð l¼ ÐGiven€the€lack€of€strong€circumstantial€proof€of€premeditation,€the€defendantððs€conviction€of€first„Ð X ¨ Ðdegree€premeditated€murder€cannot€stand,€inasmuch€as€the€state€failed€to€offer€sufficient€proof€toÐ D!” Ðelevate€the€offense€from€second„degree€murder€to€first„degree€murder.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€are€then€left€with€the€question€of€the€proper€disposition.€€Often€this€court€willÐ $X" Ðmodify€a€conviction€of€a€greater€offense€of€which€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€a€conviction€of€aÐ ô$D # Ðlesser„offense€of€which€the€evidence€is€sufficient.€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòState€v.€George€Blake€Kellyóó,€No.Ð à%0!$ Ð01C01-9610-CC-00448€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Oct.€13,€1998)€(second„degree€murderÐ Ì&"% Ðconviction€dismissed€for€insufficient€evidence€and€conviction€of€vehicular€homicide€imposed).€€AsÐ ¸'#& Ðstated€above,€the€state€sufficiently€established€that€the€defendant€committed€a€homicide,Ð ° Ðpresumptively€second„degree€murder.€€The€state€did€not€offer€sufficient€proof€to€elevate€the€offenseÐ œì Ðto€first„degree€premeditated€murder,€nor€was€the€presumption€disturbed€by€any€proof€that€the€offenseÐ ˆØ Ðwas€a€lesser€one€than€second„degree€murder.€However,€this€is€not€a€case€in€which€judicial€impositionÐ tÄ Ðof€a€second„degree€murder€conviction€is€appropriate.€€As€discussed€in€section€II.€below,€harmful€errorÐ `° Ðattended€the€jury€instructions€relative€to€this€count,€and€reversal€with€remand€is€the€properÐ L œ Ðdisposition.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€the€defendant€claims€in€the€section€of€his€brief€pertaining€to€these€issues€thatÐ  ` Ðthe€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€The€defendant€does€not€elaborate€on€thisÐ ü L  Ðclaim€specifically.€€However,€the€motion€and€amended€motion€for€new€trial€indicate€that€theÐ è 8  Ðdefendant€raised€issues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€convictions׃\×Ý ƒN#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðverdict€was€contrary€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence.€€To€that€extent,€any€issue€relative€to€the€motionÐ À  Ðfor€new€trial€was€addressed€above.€€However,€to€the€extent€that€the€defendant€may€be€attempting€toÐ ¬ü  Ðassign€error€to€any€additional€rulings€of€the€trial€court€relative€to€the€motion€for€new€trial,€we€areÐ ˜è  Ðunable€to€consider€whether€the€trial€court€erred€because€the€transcript€of€the€hearing€on€the€motionÐ „Ô  Ðfor€new€trial€is€not€included€in€the€appellate€record.€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b)€(duty€of€appellantÐ pÀ Ðto€include€transcript€of€proceedings€as€necessary€to€convey€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€ofÐ \¬ Ðwhat€transpired€in€the€trial€court€relative€to€issues€raised€on€appeal).Ð H˜ ÐÌà@žž)ìàò òIIˆÐ  p Ðó óÌà  àà ` àNext,€notwithstanding€the€defendantððs€position€at€trial€that€the€evidence€pointed€toÐ øH ÐBo€Campbell€rather€than€himself€as€the€killer€and€his€admission€that€he€was€in€the€company€ofÐ ä4 ÐCampbell€and€Ms.€Winters€on€the€evening€of€the€crime,€the€defendant€argues€on€appeal€that€thereÐ Ð  Ðis€no€evidence€to€support€a€criminal€responsibility€charge.€€Moreover,€he€claims€that€the€instruction,Ð ¼  Ðas€given,€was€incomplete€inasmuch€as€it€omitted€the€natural€and€probable€consequences€rule.€€TheÐ ¨ø Ðstate€concedes€that€the€natural€and€probable€consequences€portion€of€the€charge€should€have€beenÐ ”ä Ðgiven,€but€it€argues€that€no€harmful€error€occurred.à  àà p àÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àUnder€the€relevant€statuteÐ X ¨ ÐÌà8  àA€person€is€criminally€responsible€for€an€offense€committed€by€the€conduct€ofÐ 0"€  Ðanother€if:Ð#l!Ð Ð  Ðà8  à.€.€.€Ð$X"Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€Acting€with€intent€to€promote€or€assist€the€commission€of€the€offense,€or€toÐ ô$D # Ðbenefit€in€the€proceeds€or€results€of€the€offense,€the€person€solicits,€directs,€aids,€orÐ à%0!$ Ðattempts€to€aid€another€person€to€commit€the€offense[.]ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402(2)€(1997).€€Ð ¤(ô#' Їà  àà ` àA€defendant€is€criminally€responsible€not€only€for€the€intended,€or€target€crime,€butÐ ° Ðalso€for€those€collateral€crimes€committed€by€a€co„participant€in€the€criminal€episode€that€are€theÐ œì Ðnatural€and€probable€consequence€of€the€target€crime.€òòóó€òòSee€State€v.€Richmondóó,€90€S.W.3d€648,€654Ð ˆØ Ð(Tenn.€2002).€€Although€it€had€its€roots€in€the€common€law,€the€so„called€ð ðnatural€and€probableÐ tÄ Ðconsequences€ruleðð€€survived€the€1989€codification€of€Tennessee€law€relative€to€the€culpability€ofÐ `° Ðco„participants;€thus,€a€defendant€whose€confederate€commits€a€reasonably€foreseeable€crime€in€theÐ L œ Ðcourse€of€perpetrating€the€target€crime€is€liable€for€both€the€target€crime€and€the€incidental€crime.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐòòSee€id.€óóat€655„56;€òòState€v.€Carsonóó,€950€S.W.2d€951,€955€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð $ t ÐÌà@  ìàò òA.€Criminal€Responsibility€Instructionó óˆÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€consider€first€whether€the€evidence€supported€a€criminal€responsibility€charge.€Ð Ô$  ÐThe€defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€supports€only€one€of€two€logical€conclusions€ð!ð€that€he€isÐ À  Ðguilty€because€he€was€the€killer€and€robber,€as€advanced€by€the€state,€or€alternatively,€that€he€is€notÐ ¬ü  Ðguilty€but€is€being€framed€by€Bo€Campbell,€who€was€the€real€killer€and€robber,€and€by€Mrs.€Winters.€Ð ˜è  ÐHe€claims€that€there€is€no€evidence€of€some€intermediate€theory€whereby€he€was€part€of€a€conspiracyÐ „Ô  Ðwith€Campbell€and€Mrs.€Winters€in€which€Campbell€was€the€shooter€and€robber;€therefore,€he€cannotÐ pÀ Ðbe€guilty€of€the€crimes€under€a€criminal€responsibility€theory.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€are€not€persuaded€that€the€jury€was€required€to€accept€this€all„or„nothing€approachÐ 4„ Ðto€evaluation€of€the€evidence.€€Rather,€the€juryððs€role€as€the€trier€of€fact€is€to€determine€whichÐ  p Ðportions€of€the€evidence€are€illustrative€of€the€truth€relative€to€disputed€events.€€The€defendant€citesÐ  \ Ðno€authority€for€the€proposition€that€the€jury€must€either€accept€or€reject€a€witnessððs€testimony€òòinÐ øH Ðtotoóó,€and€we€disagree€with€that€proposition€as€a€correct€statement€of€the€law.€€€òòSee,€e.g.,€State€v.Ð ä4 ÐAdamsóó,€45€S.W.3d€46,€56€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000)€(jury€entitled€to€accept€portions€of€witnessððsÐ Ð  Ðtestimony€and€reject€other€portions),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2001);òò€State€v.€Gilbertóó,€612€S.W.2dÐ ¼  Ð188,€190€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)€(ð ðThe€jury€was€entitled€to€accept€that€part€of€the€defendantððs€proofÐ ¨ø Ðthey€felt€was€consistent€with€truth€and€reject€that€portion€they€believed€originated€in€falsity.ðð).€€ThereÐ ”ä Ðis€evidence€that€the€defendant,€Mrs.€Winters,€and€Bo€Campbell€planned€a€robbery.€€On€separateÐ €Ð Ðoccasions€on€the€day€of€the€crime,€both€the€defendant€and€Campbell€were€seen€at€the€victimððs€home.€Ð l¼ ÐCampbell,€Mrs.€Winters,€and€the€defendant€spent€time€together€on€the€evening€that€the€crimeÐ X ¨ Ðoccurred,€and€they€were€together€the€following€morning.€€There€is€evidence€that€would€support€aÐ D!” Ðtheory€of€guilt€premised€upon€the€defendant€having€conceived€a€plan€with€his€wife€and€Campbell€thatÐ 0"€  Ðthe€defendant€would€commit€a€robbery€so€that€the€three€could€use€the€proceeds€to€purchase€drugs€inÐ #l! ÐFlorida€for€resale€in€Tennessee.€€Thereafter,€Campbell,€perhaps€with€the€assistance€of€the€defendant,Ð $X" Ðshot€the€victim€and€took€his€money.€€The€three€fled€the€scene.€€€For€some€reason,€the€Winters€andÐ ô$D # ÐCampbell€thereafter€abandoned€their€plan€to€go€to€Florida€to€purchase€drugs€for€resale.€€ThisÐ à%0!$ Ðevidence€is€sufficient€to€give€rise€to€the€obligation€of€the€court€to€give€a€criminal€responsibilityÐ Ì&"% Ðcharge.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÌÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà@j j ìàò òB.€Natural€and€Probable€Consequences€InstructionˆÐ ° Ðó óÌà  àà ` àHaving€determined€that€the€evidence€supported€a€criminal€responsibility€instruction,Ð ˆØ Ðwe€turn€now€to€the€question€whether€the€lower€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€naturalÐ tÄ Ðand€probable€consequences€rule.€€Recently,€our€supreme€court€has€established€a€three„part€test€forÐ `° Ðthe€imposition€of€criminal€liability€based€on€the€natural€and€probable€consequences€rule,€wherebyÐ L œ Ðthe€stateððs€proof€must€establish€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and€the€jury€must€find:€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  à(1)à0` Ð Ð àthe€elements€of€the€crime€or€crimes€that€accompanied€the€target€crime;Ð `` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à(2)à0` Ð Ð àthat€the€defendant€was€criminally€responsible€pursuant€to€Tennessee€CodeÐ ü L  ÐAnnotated€section€39-11-402;€and€Ðè 8 ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à(3)à0` Ð Ð àthat€the€other€crimes€that€were€committed€were€natural€and€probableÐ Ô$  Ðconsequences€of€the€target€crime.ÐÀ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐòòÌState€v.€Howardóó,€30€S.W.3d€271,€276€(Tenn.€2000).€€A€positive€finding€relative€to€the€natural€andÐ ˜è  Ðprobable€consequences€rule€is€an€essential€element€which€must€be€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÐ „Ô  Ðbefore€a€conviction€will€lie€on€the€basis€of€criminal€responsibility.€€òòIdóó.€at€277;€òòRichmondóó,€90€S.W.3dÐ pÀ Ðat€657.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€natural€and€probable€consequences€aspect€of€the€instruction€onÐ 4„ Ðcriminal€responsibility€was€not€given.€€The€state€concedes€this€was€error€with€respect€to€the€felonyÐ  p Ðmurder€count€but€posits€that€it€was€harmless.€€Moreover,€it€contends€that€no€instruction€was€requiredÐ  \ Ðfor€the€robbery€conviction,€inasmuch€as€it€was€the€target€crime€and€not€an€incidental€crime€subjectÐ øH Ðto€the€natural€and€probable€consequences€rule.€€The€state€takes€no€position€with€respect€to€theÐ ä4 Ðpremeditated€murder€conviction.Ð Ð  ÐÌò ò1.à0  àEspecially€Aggravated€RobberyШø(#(# Ðó óÌà  àà ` àWhether€the€natural€and€probable€consequences€instruction€must€be€given€for€theÐ €Ð Ðtarget€crime,€as€opposed€to€merely€the€incidental€crime(s),€is€a€question€this€court€has€faced€recently.€Ð l¼ ÐIn€òòHowardóó,€the€supreme€court€said€that€òòóóthe€incidental€crimes€must€be€the€natural€and€probableÐ X ¨ Ðconsequences€of€the€target€crime.€€òòHowardóó,€30€S.W.3d€at€276.€€However,€in€òòRichmondóó,€the€supremeÐ D!” Ðcourt€said€that€ð ðthe€natural€and€probable€consequences€rule€is€ððan€essential€element€that€the€StateÐ 0"€  Ðprove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtðð€when€seeking€a€conviction€based€on€[a]€theory€of€criminalÐ #l! Ðresponsibility.ðð€òòRichmondóó,€90€S.W.3d€at€657€(quoting€òòHowardóó,€30€S.W.3d€at€277)).€€In€the€face€ofÐ $X" ÐòòRichmondóóððs€ambiguity€whether€the€natural€and€probable€consequences€charge€is€required€for€theÐ ô$D # Ðtarget€crime€as€well€as€any€incidental€crimes,€this€court€has€interpreted€òòRichmondóó€to€be€consistentÐ à%0!$ Ðwith€òòHowardóó.€€That€is,€the€natural€and€probable€consequences€rule€instruction€is€required€only€forÐ Ì&"% Ðincidental€crimes€and€not€for€the€target€crime.€€òòSee€State€v.€Corey€Mickensóó,€No.€W1999„01169„CCA„Ð ¸'#& ÐR3„CD,€slip€op.€at€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Feb.€14,€2003),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2003);Ð ¤(ô#' ÐòòState€v.€Daniel€Wade€Wilsonóó,€No.€E2000„01885„CCA„R3„CD,€slip€op.€at€16€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð )à$( ÐKnoxville,€Aug.€2,€2001),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2002).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àApplying€the€principles€of€the€foregoing€cases€to€the€one€at€bar,€we€conclude€that€theÐ ° Ðlower€court€did€not€err€in€omitting€the€natural€and€probable€consequences€instruction€with€respectÐ œì Ðto€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€count,€inasmuch€as€that€count€represented€the€target€crime.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌò ò2.à0  àFelony€MurderÐ`°(#(# Ðó óÌà  àà ` àThe€question€whether€the€natural€and€probable€consequences€instruction€was€requiredÐ 8 ˆ Ðfor€the€felony€murder€count€is€an€intriguing€one.€€ð ðThe€[natural€and€probable€consequences]€ruleÐ $ t Ðunderlies€the€doctrine€of€criminal€responsibility€and€is€based€on€the€recognition€that€aiders€andÐ  ` Ðabettors€should€be€responsible€for€the€criminal€harms€they€have€naturally,€probably€and€foreseeablyÐ ü L  Ðput€into€motion.ðð€€òòHowardóó,€30€S.W.3d€at€276.€€In€contrast,€the€felony€murder€statute,€both€as€itÐ è 8  Ðexisted€at€the€time€of€the€crime€and€today,€does€not€require€that€a€homicide€committed€during€theÐ Ô$  Ðcourse€of€one€of€the€enumerated€felonies€be€foreseeable.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2)Ð À  Ð(1997€&€2003);€òòState€v.€Hintonóó,€42€S.W.3d€113,€119€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóóÐ ¬ü  Ð(Tenn.€2001).€€ð ðWhen€one€enters€into€a€scheme€with€another€to€commit€one€of€the€feloniesÐ ˜è  Ðenumerated€in€the€felony€murder€statutes,€and€death€ensues,€both€defendants€are€responsible€for€theÐ „Ô  Ðdeath€regardless€of€who€actually€committed€the€murder€and€whether€the€killing€was€specificallyÐ pÀ Ðcontemplated€by€the€other.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€756€S.W.2d€700,€704€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð \¬ Ð1988)).€€Thus,€the€defendant€in€the€case€before€us€was€statutorily€responsible€for€òòallóó€òòhomicidesÐ H˜ Ðóócommitted€during€the€course€of€the€robbery,€whether€or€not€the€homicide€was€foreseeable.€€As€such,Ð 4„ Ðdespite€the€stateððs€concession€that€the€instruction€should€have€been€given,€the€trial€court€was€notÐ  p Ðrequired€to€give€the€natural€and€probable€consequences€instruction€for€the€felony€murder€count.òòÐ  \ ÐóóÌò ò3.à0  àPremeditated€MurderÐä4(#(# Ðó óÌà  àà ` àPremeditated€murder€was€neither€the€target€crime€nor€one€which€begs€for€an€exceptionÐ ¼  Ðto€the€general€rule€regarding€instructions€on€the€natural€and€probable€consequences€rule.€€Failure€toÐ ¨ø Ðgive€the€instruction€on€this€count€was€error.€òò€See€Richmondóó,€90€S.W.3d€at€657€(failure€to€giveÐ ”ä Ðinstruction€for€attempted€first„degree€counts€was€error).òòò òóó€€ó óÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àThus,€the€question€then€becomes€whether€it€can€be€said€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÐ \ ¬ Ðthat€the€error€was€harmless.€€òòSee€Howardóó,€30€S.W.3d€at€277€n.6.€€We€are€guided€to€an€answer€to€thatÐ H!˜ Ðquestion€by€the€supreme€courtððs€recent€rulings€in€òòHowardóó€and€òòRichmondóó.€€Both€cases€involved€aÐ 4"„  Ðgroup€of€individuals€who€pursued€a€target€crime€of€robbery,€and€in€both,€a€shooting€resulting€in€aÐ  #p! Ðhomicide€occurred.€€In€both€cases,€the€defendant€was€actually€on€the€scene€of€the€crime.€€In€findingÐ  $\" Ðthe€instructional€error€harmless€in€òòRichmondóó,€in€contrast€to€the€harmful€error€in€òòHowardóó,€the€supremeÐ ø$H # Ðcourt€focused€on€the€defendantððs€intent.€€òòSee€Richmondóó,€90€S.W.3d€at€658.€€The€court€said€that€inÐ ä%4!$ ÐòòHowardóó,€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€intent€had€been€sharply€contested,€whereas€in€òòRichmondóó,€theÐ Ð& "% Ðdefendant€ð ðshared€the€intent€of€his€fellow€assailants€and€actively€participated€in€every€facet€of€theÐ ¼' #& Ðarmed€robbery€and€subsequent€shootings.ðð€€òòId.óó€€In€òò€Howardóó,€the€defendant€admitted€he€went€with€hisÐ ¨(ø#' Ðconfederates€to€a€restaurant€knowing€that€they€planned€a€robbery,€but€he€never€admitted€having€a€gunÐ ”)ä$( Ðand€claimed€to€have€stayed€in€the€back€of€the€restaurant.€€òòHowardóó,€30€S.W.3d€at€274.€€In€òòRichmondóó,Ð €*Ð%) Ðthe€defendant€was€armed€and€positioned€proximately€to€the€victims€in€order€to€assist€his€confederatesÐ l+¼&* Ðshould€it€become€necessary.€€òòRichmondóó,€90€S.W.3d€at€658.€€He€drove€the€getaway€vehicle€in€aÐ ° Ðmanner€to€allow€one€of€his€confederates€to€fire€his€weapon€out€of€it.€€òòId.óó€€He€led€the€authorities€onÐ œì Ða€high„speed€chase.€€òòId.óóÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€believe€the€case€at€bar€is€more€akin€to€òòHowardóó€than€òòRichmondóó.€€The€evidence€ofÐ `° Ðthe€defendantððs€intent€is€contested€in€this€case.€€The€stateððs€primary€theory€of€liability€is€that€theÐ L œ Ðdefendant€was€the€leader€in€planning€and€executing€the€offense€and€that€he€alone€went€to€the€victimððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðhome€to€perpetrate€the€crime.€€The€defendant€introduced€evidence€that€there€was€no€group€plan€toÐ $ t Ðperpetrate€a€robbery;€Bo€Campbell€perpetrated€the€crime,€and€the€defendant€had€been€framed€as€theÐ  ` Ðperpetrator€of€the€crime€by€Campbell€and€Trudy€Winters.€€Although€not€primarily€pursued€by€eitherÐ ü L  Ðparty,€the€evidence€might€also€support€a€conclusion€that€there€was€a€conspiracy€to€commit€a€robberyÐ è 8  Ðto€obtain€seed€money€for€a€drug€operation;€Bo€Campbell,€either€alone€or€with€the€active€assistanceÐ Ô$  Ðof€the€defendant,€committed€the€robbery€and€murder€in€furtherance€of€the€plan.€€Given€the€contestedÐ À  Ðevidence€of€the€defendantððs€intent,€we€must€conclude€that€the€instructional€error€was€not€harmlessÐ ¬ü  Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€this€juncture,€it€is€helpful€to€recall€that€the€failure€to€give€the€natural€and€probableÐ pÀ Ðconsequences€instruction€affected€only€the€premeditated€murder€count,€and€in€the€previous€section,Ð \¬ Ðwe€held€that€the€evidence€of€premeditation€was€insufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction€of€that€crime.€Ð H˜ ÐHowever,€the€premeditated€murder€verdict€was€merged€with€the€felony€murder€verdict€into€a€singleÐ 4„ Ðjudgment€of€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€òòHowardóó,€30€S.W.3d€at€275€n.4€(dual€verdicts€of€guilt€of€premeditatedÐ  p Ðmurder€and€felony€murder€should€be€merged€into€a€single€judgment€of€conviction);€òòState€v.€Addisonóó,Ð  \ Ð973€S.W.2d€260,€267€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(single€judgment€for€merged€verdicts€protects€againstÐ øH Ðdouble€jeopardy).€€While€we€are€constrained€to€find€harmful€error€has€tainted€the€verdict€in€theÐ ä4 Ðpremeditated€murder€count,€we€are€mindful€that€it€may€better€serve€the€interests€of€the€parties€for€thisÐ Ð  Ðcount€of€the€indictment€to€be€dismissed€by€the€state€rather€than€be€the€subject€of€another€several„dayÐ ¼  Ðtrial,€given€that€the€first„degree€murder€judgment€remains€viable€based€upon€the€lack€of€errorÐ ¨ø Ðattending€the€felony€murder€verdict.€€It€is,€of€course,€the€prerogative€of€the€state,€not€this€court,€toÐ ”ä Ðmake€that€election.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àThus,€the€defendantððs€conviction€of€premeditated€murder€is€reversed.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àà@ww)ìàò òIIIˆÐ 0"€  Ðó óÌà  àà ` àThe€defendantððs€third€challenge€is€to€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€allowing€evidence€of€aÐ $X" Ðletter€the€defendant€wrote€to€his€wife€after€his€pre„trial€incarceration.€€He€claims€that€this€letter€wasÐ ô$D # Ðsubject€to€exclusion€pursuant€to€the€marital€communications€privilege.€€à  àà x àà Ð àÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌà  àà ` àThe€letter€in€question€was€introduced€by€the€state€and€characterized€as€incriminatingÐ ¸'#& Ðand€as€suggesting€that€the€defendantððs€wife€relate€a€concocted€version€of€events€to€investigators.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐAfter€its€introduction,€the€defendant€characterized€the€letter€as€containing€a€recitation€of€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âdefendantððs€recollection€of€events€on€the€night€of€the€victimððs€killing€and€of€the€stateððs€evidence€asÐ |*Ì%) Ðrevealed€during€pre„trial€discovery.€€It€is€not€disputed€that€the€letter€contains€references€to€theÐ ° Ðcoupleððs€wedding€vows€and€the€defendantððs€love€for€his€wife.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àAt€the€hearing€regarding€the€admissibility€of€the€letter,€Trudy€Winters€testified€thatÐ tÄ Ðalthough€she€was€still€married€to€the€defendant,€she€considered€the€marriage€to€have€ended€threeÐ `° Ðyears€prior€when€the€defendant€had€been€taken€to€jail.€€Mrs.€Winters€claimed€that€although€she€andÐ L œ Ðher€husband€lived€together€until€his€incarceration,€their€marriage€had€not€been€on€steady€footing;€sheÐ 8 ˆ Ðhad€been€the€victim€of€domestic€violence,€and€the€defendant€had€previously€abandoned€her€inÐ $ t ÐCalifornia€and€then€had€been€untruthful€about€his€whereabouts.€€She€conceded€that€she€and€theÐ  ` Ðdefendant€exchanged€letters€after€his€incarceration,€she€having€sent€him€at€least€30€letters,€and€heÐ ü L  Ðhaving€sent€her€about€100€letters.€€She€claimed,€however,€that€she€had€visited€the€defendant€onlyÐ è 8  Ðonce€in€his€three€years€of€incarceration,€and€she€had€not€had€any€contact€with€him€in€a€year€and€aÐ Ô$  Ðhalf.€€Mrs.€Winters€explained€that€she€was€waiting€for€the€defendant€to€be€sent€to€prison€because€aÐ À  Ðdivorce€would€be€less€expensive€then,€and€even€should€he€be€found€not€guilty,€she€had€no€intentionÐ ¬ü  Ðof€resuming€a€marital€relationship€with€him.€€Mrs.€Winters€conceded€that€she€wrote€a€letter€to€theÐ ˜è  Ðdefendant€after€receiving€the€letter€in€question.€€Mrs.€Wintersðð€letter€to€the€defendant€was€receivedÐ „Ô  Ðas€an€exhibit.€€In€it,€she€professes€her€love€for€the€defendant€and€says€that€they€are€still€husband€andÐ pÀ Ðwife.€€She€testified€that€when€she€wrote€the€letter€she€was€no€longer€in€love€with€the€defendant€andÐ \¬ Ðdid€not€consider€their€marriage€viable,€although€she€would€always€love€him.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€law€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€the€issue€was€thatÐ  p ÐÌà8  à(a)à0` Ð Ð àIn€either€a€civil€or€criminal€proceeding,€no€married€person€has€privilege€toÐ øH Ðrefuse€to€take€the€witness€stand€solely€because€that€person's€spouse€is€a€partyÐ ä4 Ðto€the€proceeding.€ÐÐ ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à(b)à0` Ð Ð àIn€either€a€civil€or€criminal€proceeding,€confidential€comÔ_ÔmunicationsÔ_Ô€betweenÐ ¼  Ðmarried€persons€are€privileged€and€inadmissible€if€either€spouse€objects.€€ThisÐ ¨ø Ðcommunications€privilege€shall€not€apply€to€proceedings€between€spouses€orÐ ”ä Ðto€proceedings€concerning€abuse€of€one€(1)€of€the€spouses€or€abuse€of€a€minorÐ €Ð Ðin€the€custody€of€or€under€the€dominion€and€control€of€either€spouse,Ð l¼ Ðincluding,€but€not€limited€to,€proceedings€arising€under€title€36,€chapter€1,Ð X ¨ Ðpart€1;€title€37,€chapter€1,€parts€1,€4€and€6;€title€37,€chapter€2,€part€4;€and€titleÐ D!” Ð71,€chapter€6,€part€1.€This€confidential€communications€privilege€shall€notÐ 0"€  Ðapply€to€any€insuredððs€obligations€under€a€contract€of€insurance€in€civilÐ #l! Ðproceedings.€Ð$X"` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„1„201€(amended€2000).€€In€order€for€the€privilege€to€be€recognizedÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà8  à(1)à0` Ð Ð àThe€communication[]€must€originate€in€a€confidence€that€[it]€will€not€beÐ ¸'#& Ðdisclosed.Ф(ô#'` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à(2)à0` Ð Ð àThis€element€of€confidentiality€must€be€essential€to€the€full€and€satisfactoryÐ )à$( Ðâ âmaintenance€of€the€relation€between€the€parties.Ð|*Ì%)` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à(3)€à0` Ð Ð àThe€relation€must€be€one€which,€in€the€opinion€of€the€community,€ought€toÐ ° Ðâ âbe€sedulously€fostered.Мì` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à(4)€à0` Ð Ð àThe€injury€that€would€inure€to€the€relation€by€the€disclosure€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðcommunication[]€must€be€greater€than€the€benefit€thereby€gained€for€theÐ tÄ Ðcorrect€disposal€of€litigation.Ð`°` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌòòState€v.€Priceóó,€46€S.W.3d€785,€799„800€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000)€(citing€òòAdams€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2dÐ 8 ˆ Ð804,€808€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978)),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2001).׃b×Ý ƒN#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Factor€(A)€focuses€on€theÐ $ t Ðexpectation€of€the€communicating€spouse€at€the€time€of€the€communication,€whereas€assessment€forÐ  ` Ðthe€presence€of€factors€(B),€(C)€and€(D)€must€be€done€from€the€facts€as€they€exist€at€the€time€of€theÐ ü L  Ðtrial€courtððs€ruling.€€òòState€v.€Leslie€Thurman€Mitchellóó,€No.€E2002„01537„CCA„R3„CD,€slip€op.€atÐ è 8  Ð9„10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Aug.€1,€2003),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2003).€€If€the€privilegeÐ Ô$  Ðis€recognized€relative€to€a€given€communication,€it€is€inadmissible€upon€objection€of€either€spouse.׃d×Ý ƒN#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РÀ  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„1„201(c)(2)€(2000).Ð ¬ü  ÐÔ‡cXgî XXjX¹ÔÌà  àà ` àÔ#†jX¹X XcXgîù)#ÔThe€lower€court€found€that€only€the€first€of€the€four€requisite€factors€existed€andÐ ~Î  Ðtherefore€permitted€introduction€of€the€defendantððs€letter€to€his€wife.€€On€appellate€review,€we€mustÐ jº Ðdefer€to€the€lower€courtððs€findings€of€fact€relative€to€the€existence€or€non„existence€of€the€four€factorsÐ V¦ Ðunless€the€evidence€preponderates€to€the€contrary.€€òòSee€Priceóó,€46€S.W.3d€at€802òòóó.à x àÐ B’ ÐÌà  àà ` àWith€respect€to€the€first€factor,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€lowerÐ j Ðcourtððs€finding€that€the€communication€originated€in€a€confidence€that€it€would€not€be€disclosed€toÐ V Ðthird€parties.€€On€appeal,€the€state€does€not€contend€otherwise.€€The€tenor€of€the€letter€supports€anÐ òB Ðinference€that€the€defendant€believed€the€communication€would€remain€confidential€between€himselfÐ Þ. Ðand€his€wife.Ð Ê ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€none€of€the€three€remaining€factors€were€established€by€theÐ ¢ò Ðevidence.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€these€determinations.€€By€the€time€of€theÐ ŽÞ Ðhearing€on€admissibility€of€the€letter,€Trudy€Winters€no€longer€desired€to€have€a€marital€relationshipÐ zÊ Ðwith€the€defendant€and€was€anticipating€his€conviction€so€that€she€might€obtain€an€inexpensiveÐ f¶ Ðdivorce.€€Even€in€better€times,€the€marriage€had€involved€domestic€violence€and€betrayal.€€Thus,€theÐ R ¢ Ðelement€of€confidentiality€was€not€essential€to€optimal€maintenance€of€the€relationship,€and€thisÐ >!Ž Ðmarriage€was€not€a€relationship€which€should€be€sedulously€fostered.€€òòPriceóó,€46€S.W.3d€at€799„800.€Ð *"z  ÐMoreover,€given€that€the€marriage€was,€for€all€intents€and€purposes,€irretrievably€damaged,€there€wasÐ #f! Ðnot€a€risk€of€injury€to€it€by€disclosure€of€the€communication€to€be€balanced€against€the€benefit€fromÐ $R" Ðcorrect€disposal€of€the€prosecution.€€òòSee€id.óóÐ î$> # Ðâ âÐ Ú%*!$ Ðà  àà ` àIn€so€holding,€we€have€considered€and€rejected€the€defendantððs€several€argumentsÐ ° Ðâ ârelative€to€this€issue.€€Much€of€the€defendantððs€argument€focuses€on€the€credibility€of€Trudy€WintersððÐ œì Ðtestimony,€particularly€to€the€extent€that€it€is€at€odds€with€the€professions€of€love€and€commitmentÐ ˆØ Ðin€the€defendantððs€letter€to€her,€as€well€as€in€a€letter€she€wrote€to€him.€€However,€the€trial€courtÐ tÄ Ðconsidered€all€the€evidence€and€resolved€the€credibility€issues€in€favor€of€the€stateððs€position€that€theÐ `° Ðletter€was€admissible.€€We€must€defer€to€the€trial€court,€which€had€the€opportunity€to€see€and€hearÐ L œ Ðthe€witnesses,€in€questions€involving€witness€credibility.€€òòSee€State€v.€Odom,óó€928€S.W.2d€18,€23Ð 8 ˆ Ð(Tenn.€1996).Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€state€actors,€namely€law€enforcement€agents,Ð ü L  Ðcaused€a€rift€between€the€defendant€and€Mrs.€Winters€when€they€threatened€to€charge€Mrs.€WintersÐ è 8  Ðwith€murder€unless€she€testified€against€the€defendant€and€told€her€falsely€that€the€defendant€wasÐ Ô$  Ðplacing€blame€on€her€for€the€crimes.€€The€defendant€cites€no€authority€for€exclusion€on€this€basis.€Ð À  ÐTo€the€extent€that€he€may€be€attempting€to€use€this€argument€as€a€means€of€neutralizing€the€evidenceÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€the€Wintersðð€marriage€was€no€longer€viable,€we€are€uncompelled.€€Even€if€we€were€to€accept€thatÐ ˜è  Ðexclusion€of€evidence€would€be€the€appropriate€sanction€for€malfeasance€by€the€state€in€this€respect,Ð „Ô  Ðthere€is€not€sufficient€evidence€of€record€for€us€to€conclude€that€the€law€enforcement€tacticsÐ pÀ Ðemployed€by€state€actors€in€this€case€were€outside€the€bounds€of€legitimate,€reasonable€activity€inÐ \¬ Ða€homicide€investigation.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€another€argument€which€is€devoid€of€citation€to€authority,€the€defendant€claims€thatÐ  p Ðthe€letter€had€little€or€no€probative€value€because€its€contents€are€ð ðambiguous€and€open€toÐ  \ Ðinterpretationðð€inasmuch€as€it€did€not€contain€explicit€admissions€of€guilt,€only€claims€of€innocence.׃e×Ý ƒN#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РøH ÐWe€presume€this€is€an€attack€on€the€letterððs€relevance.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402€(only€relevantÐ ä4 Ðevidence€is€admissible).€€However,€the€letterððs€contents€concern€the€defendantððs€activities€andÐ Ð  Ðwhereabouts€on€the€night€of€the€homicide.€€The€letter€is€relevant,€and€it€is€not€subject€to€exclusionÐ ¼  Ðon€this€basis.€€To€the€extent€that€the€letter€may€be€viewed€as€ambiguous,€resolution€of€its€meaningÐ ¨ø Ðwas€properly€a€matter€for€the€juryððs€determination.Ð ”ä ÐÌÔ‡PXgî XXjX¹Ôà  àà ` àÔ#†jX¹X XPXgîô>#ÔFinally,€the€defendant€makes€a€somewhat€ambiguous€argument€based€upon€the€factÐ l¼ Ðthat€there€was€no€pending€divorce€proceeding€at€the€time€of€trial.€€He€contrasts€this€to€the€situationÐ X ¨ Ðin€òòState€v.€Priceóó,€in€which€there€was€pending€divorce€litigation€and€the€marital€communicationsÐ D!” Ðprivilege€was€not€recognized.€€òòSee€Priceóó,€46€S.W.3d€at€802.€€We€presume€this€is€an€effort€to€persuadeÐ 0"€  Ðthis€court€that€the€state€failed€to€prove€(1)€that€the€defendantððs€marriage€would€not€be€damaged€byÐ #l! Ðdisclosure,€and€(2)€that€the€stateððs€interest€in€prosecuting€the€defendant€for€murder€and€robberyÐ $X" Ðoutweighed€any€harm€that€would€befall€the€defendantððs€marriage.€€However,€òòPriceóó€does€not€standÐ ô$D # Ðfor€the€proposition€that€divorce€proceedings€must€be€initiated€before€the€marital€communicationsÐ à%0!$ Ðprivilege€will€apply.€€In€fact,€òòPriceóó€merely€noted€that€divorce€proceedings€were€pending€andÐ Ì&"% Ðconcluded€that€ð ðthere€was€evidence€that€the€defendantððs€marriage€was€already€failing,€whether€hisÐ ¸'#& Ðwife€testified€at€this€trial€or€not.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Such€can€be€said€in€this€case.€€Likewise,€òòPriceóó€noted€that,€asÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhere,€there€were€no€eyewitnesses€to€the€murder,€and€ð ðthe€testimony€of€the€defendantððs€wife€offeredÐ ° Ða€significant€benefit€to€the€trier€of€fact,€a€greater€benefit€than€any€injury€caused€thereby.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ œì ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€did€not€err€in€declining€to€recognize€the€marital€communicationsÐ tÄ Ðprivilege.Ð `° ÐÌà@}})ìàò òIVˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àó óFinally,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€Trudy€WintersððÐ  ` Ðprior€consistent€statement.€€During€cross„examination€of€Mrs.€Winters,€the€defense€highlightedÐ ü L  Ðseveral€inconsistencies€between€her€testimony€and€a€prior€statement€she€gave€to€Detective€DudleyÐ è 8  Ðat€a€time€when€she€professed€to€be€telling€the€truth.€€It€appears€from€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÐ Ô$  Ðallowed€the€jury€to€hear€a€recording€of€the€statement€on€the€rationale€that€the€state€had€the€right€toÐ À  Ðrehabilitate€its€witness€with€her€statement€once€her€credibility€was€assailed€via€inconsistent€excerptsÐ ¬ü  Ðof€the€prior€statement.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€his€written€motion€for€new€trial,׃f×Ý ƒN#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€defendant€claimed€that€the€lower€court€erredÐ pÀ Ðin€allowing€the€jury€to€hear€the€prior€statement€because€it€was€not€a€consistent€statement.€€On€appeal,Ð \¬ Ðhe€contends€that€the€prior€statement€should€not€have€been€admitted€because€it€was€made€at€a€timeÐ H˜ Ðwhen€Mrs.€Winters€had€a€motive€to€lie,€and€it€was€unreliable€due€to€myriad€inconsistencies€and€Mrs.Ð 4„ ÐWintersðð€lack€of€credibility.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àGenerally,€prior€consistent€statements€are€not€admissible€to€rehabilitate€a€witness€whoÐ øH Ðhas€been€impeached.€€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589,€593€(Tenn.€1990).€€However,€ð ð[w]here€specificÐ ä4 Ðquestions€and€answers€taken€out€of€context€do€not€convey€the€true€picture€of€the€prior€statementÐ Ð  Ðalleged€to€be€inconsistent,€it€is€unfair€to€permit€reference€to€isolated,€unexplained€responses€by€theÐ ¼  Ðwitness€and€there€is€no€error€in€allowing€the€statements€to€be€placed€in€context.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€594.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àWhat€occurred€here€is€that€the€defense,€on€cross„examination€of€Mrs.€Winters,Ð €Ð Ðmounted€a€vigorous€effort€to€discredit€her€testimony€by€confronting€her€with€variances€between€herÐ l¼ Ðtrial€testimony€and€prior€statements€she€had€given€to€law€enforcement.€€This€effort€includedÐ X ¨ Ðhighlighting€several€variances€between€her€most€recent€prior€statement€to€Detective€Dudley,€whichÐ D!” Ðshe€claimed€had€been€wholly€truthful,€and€her€trial€testimony.€€Two€examples€are€recited€by€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefendant€in€his€appellate€brief.€€First,€the€witness€told€Dudley€that€after€she€was€released€from€policeÐ #l! Ðquestioning€shortly€after€the€crime,€she€and€Bo€Campbell€used€crack€cocaine€together,€whereas€atÐ $X" Ðtrial€she€said€that€she€called€Campbell€to€give€her€a€ride€home,€but€he€did€not€do€so.׃hÜ×Ý ƒN#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Second,€sheÐ ô$D # Ðtold€Detective€Dudley€that€on€the€night€of€the€crime,€she€and€Campbell€went€inside€the€tavern€andÐ ° Ðhad€a€beer€while€waiting€for€the€defendant€to€return€from€Northside€Inn,€but€in€her€direct€examinationÐ œì Ðtestimony,€she€said€that€she€had€stayed€in€the€van€the€entire€time.€€The€thrust€of€cross„examinationÐ ˆØ Ðrelative€to€the€prior€statement€was€to€highlight€the€inconsistent€portions€in€isolation€in€order€to€callÐ tÄ ÐMrs.€Wintersðð€overall€credibility€into€question.€€As€such,€the€prior€statement€was€properly€admittedÐ `° Ðto€show€the€overall€context€of€the€excerpted€portions€utilized€by€the€defense€on€cross„examinationÐ L œ Ðof€Mrs.€Winters.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àSeeking€to€avoid€the€rule€allowing€admission€of€prior€consistent€statements€in€thisÐ  ` Ðsituation,€the€defendant€claims€that€Mrs.€Wintersðð€prior€statement€is€not€a€consistent€one.€€AlthoughÐ ü L  Ðthe€defense€is€correct€to€the€extent€that€Mrs.€Wintersðð€prior€statement€to€Detective€Dudley€is€notÐ è 8  Ðwholly€consistent€with€her€trial€testimony,€viewed€in€their€respective€entireties€as€regards€theÐ Ô$  Ðhomicide€of€the€victim,€the€prior€statement€and€the€trial€testimony€òòareóó€fairly€viewed€as€consistent.€Ð À  ÐBoth€establish€the€major€events€surrounding€the€crime€ð!ð€the€plan€to€rob€a€drug€dealer,€the€defendantððsÐ ¬ü  Ðtrips€to€Northside€Inn€on€the€night€of€the€crime,€the€gunshot,€the€defendantððs€possession€of€a€weapon,Ð ˜è  Ðthe€defendantððs€return€after€the€second€trip€to€Northside€Inn€with€cash€that€he€had€not€had€previously,Ð „Ô  Ðand€the€defendantððs€reluctance€to€return€to€the€location€of€the€crime.€€Although€there€are€numerousÐ pÀ Ðinconsistencies,€they€are€in€the€details€and€not€in€the€overall€import€of€the€prior€statement€or€the€trialÐ \¬ Ðtestimony.€€The€defendantððs€focus€on€the€inconsistencies€unfairly€painted€a€picture€of€the€statementÐ H˜ Ðas€an€inconsistent€one,€and€admission€of€the€entire€statement€allowed€the€jury€to€view€theÐ 4„ Ðinconsistencies€in€their€overall€context.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€are€likewise€unpersuaded€by€the€defendantððs€argument€that€the€statement€shouldÐ øH Ðnot€have€been€admitted€because€it€was€made€at€a€time€that€the€witness€had€a€motive€to€lie.€€A€priorÐ ä4 Ðconsistent€statement€may€be€admitted€to€rebut€a€claim€of€recent€fabrication€if€the€prior€statement€wasÐ Ð  Ðmade€before€the€motive€to€lie€arose.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Sutton€v.€Stateóó,€155€Tenn.€200,€204,€291€S.W.€1069,Ð ¼  Ð1070€(1927).€€The€defendant€cites€this€rule€as€a€basis€for€excluding€Mrs.€Wintersðð€testimony€on€theÐ ¨ø Ðbasis€that€she€had€the€same€motive€to€lie€ð!ð€avoiding€criminal€prosecution€ð!ð€when€she€gave€herÐ ”ä Ðð ðtruthfulðð€statement€as€she€did€at€trial.€€However,€the€defendant€does€not€explain€why€this€ruleÐ €Ð Ðrequires€exclusion€of€a€prior€statement€made€when€a€witness€had€a€motive€to€lie€if€the€statement€isÐ l¼ Ðadmissible€on€some€independent€basis,€as€is€the€prior€statement€in€the€case€at€bar.€€Thus,€we€haveÐ X ¨ Ðrejected€this€argument.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€conclusion,€the€defendantððs€convictions€of€first„degree€felony€murder€andÐ #l! Ðaggravated€robbery€are€affirmed.€€His€conviction€of€first„degree€premeditated€murder€is€reversed,€andÐ $X" Ðthe€matter€is€remanded€for€a€new€trial€on€that€count.Ð ô$D # ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€Ô_ÔCURWOODÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWITTÔ_Ô,€JR.,€JUDGE