WPCJ &/Gv "\rUW54 J*g7uQnQ }T#Ş|ۑٓmR|H6Fn jkro딩Wyas[G ~\Of=0ȡ?%5@Y~`;GͷކPD9GO#c-ޚp k ]D2)W AA}4s-!nv+ؚzۛ\NO.l9=$,7R#f/Zָ Pq.?8FB ?u6Zlqd]z ϬsS+~^M*鳪<)`td8ŧA-m@ƬXl(y{_㦼%J'V .5DެK$U0/% 0_% 0& 0& 0>' 0' 0( 0) 0* 0i+ 0K, 0-- 0- 02. 0. 0:/ 0Y!0 0_z0 0 0 01 0e3 B*k5 D/5 D+5 05 D/7 0$8 068 0(9 0:0: 0^j: 0<: 1e;U6i;U*; 0;; < B< 0D< = 0c"="="= 1u= 72= 04,>,>,>,>,>,>,>,>,>b`>`>`>`>`>`>`>`>`>`>`>`>`>U>@h>h>h>h>">>>>E@@@@@@(BBBB#CCCC(+H+H+H+H+H SHSHSHSHSHSHSH^J tJtJ JJJJJJ(JHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6V,,,,V0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,("  Z6Times New Roman Regular61 ,H1:i+003|xU Shipp*+ (_2623  ..*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` */+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h (&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L  <:Default Para<:envelope ret   2( 4 <DL2  E0 $ChristieES/\  `&Times New RomanS    2( 4 <DL2  <:envelope add  ` &<<DL&C. $TabithaCS/\  `&Times New RomanS  2( 4 <DL2  8sy6Block Text      ," <DL,XXX     2( 4 <DL2  $Tabitha\  `&Times New Roman $Christie0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKS/\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKS/\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKS/\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7F(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?R%2A`Arial?  S/\  `&Times New RomanS7G(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dE)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7I(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?R%2A`Arial?  S/\  `&Times New RomanS7G(X75+ ` hp x 5  E)2dxd0KS.SampleKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKS/\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKS/\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial(YG2b$ !USUS.,  Xq'XXX      0   XXq'SearchTerm d(#$  0     (;3$2#  0  .3  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)\i)&c$""0 - -(9 Z(Times New Roman   Sb$USUS.,XyXXX      1  1XXy  _WenotethatinthecaseofcodefendantAntonioJackson,apanelofthiscourtconcludedthatevidenceof  JamesspresenceattheapartmentdidnotimplicatehimasanaccomplicetothekidnappingormurderofGreen.State o v.Jackson,52S.W.3d661,666(Tenn._Crim_.App.2001).  Sb$USUS.,XyXXX      4  1XXy  _Weseenoindicationintherecordthatthetattooartist,JasonOwens,hadexaminedthetattoosofthe  defendant.ThedefendantcorrectlystatesinhisbriefthatanexparterequestforfundstoretainOwenswasfiledshortly o priortothemotionfornewtrialhearinganddeniedbythetrialcourt.  Sb$USUS.,XyXXX      2  1XXy  _Thestatealsocontendsthistranscriptwasapublicrecordequallyavailabletothedefense,thusexemptingit  fromtheBradyrequirements.SeeMarshall,845S.W.2dat233.Severalcourtshaveconcludedthefailuretoreveal o publicrecordsdoesnotviolateBrady.See,e.g.,Kidwellv.State,444S.E.2d789,792(Ga.1994)(concludingtranscripts .~ oftrialsofotherdefendantswerepublicrecordsand,therefore,thestatewasnotrequiredtodisclosethem);Peoplev. = Salgado,635N.E.2d1367,1376(Ill.App.1994)(holdingthatpriorinconsistentstatementscontainedintranscriptswere  #cdddamatterofpublicrecordandnolessavailabletothedefendantthantothestate).Thedefendantcontendsthesuppression k #ddcdhearingtranscriptwasnotreadilyavailabletodefensecounsel.Weneednotdeterminethisissueinlightofourholding * z thatthetranscriptdidnotmeettheBagleymaterialitytest.  Sb$USUS.,XyXXX      3  1XXy  _TheholdinginJencksv.UnitedStates,353U.S.657,672,77S.Ct.1007,1L.Ed.2d1103(1957),and  subsequentcongressionalactionwasincorporatedintoRule26.2ofboththeFederalandTennesseeRulesofCriminal o Procedure,requiringtheproductionofstatementsofwitnessesattrial.   SDU_9SDU_41 !USUS.,  _Oa      g  8!XXdd8X?ctXyXXXt=XtXy@&APPENDIX#=t=##XyX=#XXyԈ  t#tXyXtt#t=XtXy@ (ExcerptsoftheDecisionoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals)#tXyXt=# #XyXXtXy#Ԉ  !q X?c X X  @hh?XXyINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#XyX?#Ԉ    XXyMay6,2003Session >  STATEOFTENNESSEEv.GREGORYROBINSON#XyX#?XXy   V #XyX?y#XXy@@ #XyX#DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforShelbyCounty 1  @@No.971317980JamesC._Beasley_,Jr.,Judge  g @@*AV|) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200101299CCAR3DDFiledAugust13,2003   AV|) ` dE<` A         JoeG.Riley,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidG.HayesandJohnEverett K Williams,JJ.,joined. 1  XXy@55'#XyX#OPINION  3   ?XXy   `     h #XyX?l#  @   tXyXXXy[Deleted:STATESPROOFGUILTPHASE]   #XyXXtXy #X!XXXy #XyXXX! # @  tXyXXXy[Deleted:DEFENSEPROOFGUILTPHASE]  e #XyXXtXy #@  [Deleted:JURYSVERDICTGUILTPHASE]  1  @  [Deleted:STATESPROOFPENALTYPHASE]  M @S S  [Deleted:DEFENSEPROOFPENALTYPHASE] /XyXXXyԈ !!   @N N  [Deleted:JURYSVERDICTPENALTYPHASE]  ## #XyXX/Xye #@t t  ANALYSISOFISSUESPRESENTEDGUILTPHASE G&!& ̚tXyXXXy@ I.DENIALOFINDIVIDUALANDSEQUESTEREDVOIRDIREOFTHEVENIRE  (c#( #addd  Thedefendantclaimsthatthetrialcourterredindenyinghismotionforindividual, )/%* sequestered#ddadvoirdireofthejurypanel.  Theprevailingvoirdirepracticeistoexaminejurors *&+ collectively.Statev.Austin,87S.W.3d447app.at471(Tenn.2002),cert.denied,򀀀U.S.򀀀 +&, (2003)#XyXXtXy| #/XyXXXy.Thereisnorequirementincapitalcasesthatdeathqualificationofacapitaljurybe ,'- conductedby#XyXX/Xy#/XyXXXyindividual,sequesteredvoirdire.Id.(citing#XyXX/Xy#/XyXXXyStatev.#XyXX/Xy>#/XyXXXyStephenson,#XyXX/Xy#/XyXXXyԀ878S.W.2d530,  540(Tenn.1994))#XyXX/Xy#.Moreover,asageneralrule,thedecisiontoallowindividualvoirdireof  prospectivejurorsiswithinthediscretionofthetrialcourt.Stephenson,878S.W.2dat540. | Thedefendanthasfailedtoshowthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionindenyinghismotionfor b individual,sequesteredvoirdire. H ̚ tXyXXXy@  II.REJECTIONOF_BATSON_CHALLENGE   d   Thedefendantcontendsthatthetrialcourts_conclusory_Ԁrejectionofatimely_Batson_  0 challengetothestatesstrikingoffiveAfricanAmericanmembersofthevenire,withoutany    contemporaneousfindingsandwithoutrequiringthestatetoprofferanexplanation,warrantsa    remandforahearingtodeterminewhetheranewtrialshouldbegranted.     Duringvoirdire,sevenjurorswereexcusedbythestateasaresultofperemptory ^  challenges.Aftertheirdismissal,thedefenseraisedanobjectionandnotedthatfiveofthese D  jurorswereAfricanAmerican.Thetrialcourtfoundtherewasnobasistodeclarethatanyofthe *z  challengeswerebaseduponrace. `    Astatesuseofperemptorychallengestointentionallyexcludejurorsofthedefendants , raceviolatesthedefendantsrighttoequalprotection._Batson_Ԁv.Kentucky#XyXXtXy#tXyXXXy,476U.S.79,89,106  S.Ct.1712,90L.Ed.2d69(1986).TheCourtupheldthisprincipleinPowersv.Ohio,but  eliminatedtherequirementthatthedefendantandthepotentialjurorsharethesamerace.499  U.S.400,415,111S.Ct.1364,113L.Ed.2d411(1991).Adefendantseekingtoraisea_Batson_ t claimmustfirstmakeaprimafacieshowingofpurposefuldiscriminationagainstaprospective Z juror._Batson_,476U.S.at9394.Thedefendantmustestablish thataconsiderationofallthe @ relevantcircumstancesraisesaninferenceofpurposefuldiscrimination.Woodsonv.Porter &v BrownLimestoneCo.,916S.W.2d896,903(Tenn.1996).Ifaprimafacieshowingof  \ purposefuldiscriminationisestablished,theburdenthenshiftstothestatetoestablishaneutral B basisforthechallenge._Batson_,476U.S.at97.#XyXXtXyT#tXyXXXy (   Thetrialcourtmustgivespecificreasonsforeachofitsfactualfindingsinrulingon  peremptorychallenges#XyXXtXy#tXyXXXy.Woodson,916S.W.2dat906.Thisshouldincludethereasonthe   objectingpartyhasorhasnotestablishedaprimafacieshowingofpurposefuldiscrimination. p!  Thetrialcourtsfindingsaretobeaccordedgreatweightandwillnotbesetasideunlesstheyare V"! clearlyerroneous.Id.#XyXXtXy#tXyXXXy;seealsoMillerElv._Cockrell_,537U.S.322,123S.Ct.1029,154L.Ed. <#" 2d931(2003)(notingdeferencetothetrialcourtisnecessaryrelatingtocredibility).#XyXXtXy#tXyXXXy "$r#   Thetrialcourtfoundthatthedefendanthadnotmadeaprimafacieshowingof %>!% discrimination.#XyXXtXy #/XyXXXyIndeterminingwhetherthedefendanthasestablishedaprimafaciecase,the &$"& trialcourt#XyXX/Xy!#/XyXXXymayconsiderwhethersimilarlysituatedmembersofanotherracewereseatedonthe ' #' jury.Statev.Stout,46S.W.3d689,711(Tenn.)(citationsomitted),cert.denied,534U.S.998 (#( (2001).Thetrialcourtmayalsoconsiderthedemeanoroftheattorneywhoexercisedthe )$) challenge,whichisoftenthebestevidenceofthecredibilityofprofferedexplanations.Id.#XyXX/Xy~"#/XyXXXyԀat l*%* 71112(citationsomitted). R+&+   8,', _#XyXX/Xyz$#/XyXXXy  Intheinstantcase,therecordrevealsthatthefinaljury#XyXX/Xy3%#/XyXXXy consistedofsixAfrican   AmericansandsixCaucasians  .Atthemotionfornewtrial,thecourtcommentedthattheonly  reasonadvancedbythedefensetoestablishaprimafaciecasewasthenumberofstrikesused | againstAfricanAmericans  .Whilethecourtconcededthataprimafaciecasemaybe b establishedbynumbersalone,thetrialcourtfurtherexplainedthatwasnotdoneintheinstant H case  .Indeed,thetrialcourtstated: . ~ 8  ...ifallyourestandingupandsayingis...numbersalone,thatsmyprima  J faciecase,Istill!andIknowwhatthecaselawsays!butImstilloftheopinion  0 thatatthetimeofmyobservations,mybeingpresent,listeningtothejurors    testify,observingthedemeanorofthejurors,watchingandtakingnotesofwhat    wasgoingon,Iwasnotconvincedatthattimethattherewasasystematic   exclusionofAfricanAmericansfromthisjury,andthatwasthebasisforit;not x  strictlyonnumbers,butitwasbasedontheoverallcircumstancesofwhatwas ^  occurringinthecourtroom.D    #adddWecannotconcludethatthetrialcourtsfindingswereclearlyerroneous.SeeStatev.Keen,31 ` S.W.3d#ddad196app.at22729(Tenn.2000)(holdingtherewasnoshowingofpurposeful F discriminationwherefourAfricanAmericanjurorswereperemptorilychallengedbythestate), , cert.denied,532U.S.907(2001).Inlightofthetrialcourtsfindings,weconcludethisissueis  withoutmerit.  #XyXX/Xy%#   @ III.SUFFICIENCYOFTHEEVIDENCE  t #bddd  Thedefendantcontendstheevidencewasinsufficienttosupporthisconvictions.We @ conclude#ddbdtheevidencewassufficienttosupportbothconvictions. &v  A.LegalStandard B   tXyXXXyInTennessee,greatweightisgiventotheresultreachedbythejuryinacriminaltrial.A  juryverdictaccreditsthestateswitnessesandresolvesallconflictsinfavorofthestate.State  v.Bigbee,885S.W.2d797,803(Tenn.1994).Onappeal,thestateisentitledtothestrongest   legitimateviewoftheevidenceandallreasonableinferenceswhichmaybedrawntherefrom. p!  Id.;Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.1978).Moreover,aguiltyverdictremoves V"! thepresumptionofinnocencewhichtheappellantenjoyedattrialandraisesapresumptionof <#" guiltonappeal.Statev.Grace,493S.W.2d474,476(Tenn.1973).Theappellanthasthe "$r# burdenofovercomingthispresumptionofguilt.Id. %X $   Wheresufficiencyoftheevidenceischallenged,therelevantquestionforanappellate &$"& courtiswhether,afterviewingtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletotheprosecution,any ' #' rationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsofthecrimeorcrimesbeyonda (#( reasonabledoubt.Tenn.R.App.P.13(e);Jacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,319,99S.Ct. )$) 2781,61L.Ed.2d560(1979);Statev.Abrams,935S.W.2d399,401(Tenn.1996).Theweight l*%* andcredibilityofthewitnessestestimonyaremattersentrustedexclusivelytothejuryasthe R+&+ triersoffact.Statev.Sheffield,676S.W.2d542,547(Tenn.1984);Statev.Brewer,932 8,', S.W.2d1,19(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).#XyXXtXyA/# -n(- Ї  Thestatestheoryattrialwasthatthedefendantwasresponsiblefortheactionsofhis  fellowGangsterDisciplesbaseduponthetheoryofcriminalresponsibility.Itisundisputedthat  thedefendantwasnotpresentatthemurderscene.Asapplicabletothecaseatbar,apersonis | criminallyresponsiblefortheconductofanotherif, [a]ctingwithintenttopromoteorassistthe b commissionoftheoffense,ortobenefitintheproceedsorresultsoftheoffense,theperson H solicits,directs,aids,orattemptstoaidanotherpersontocommittheoffense.Tenn.CodeAnn. . ~ tXyXXXy3911402(2)(1997).  d  B.AnalysisofOverallSufficiencyoftheEvidence   0   Inthiscase,itiswithoutdisputethatthevictimwasunlawfullyremovedorconfinedso    astosubstantiallyinterferewithhisliberty;itwasaccomplishedwithadeadlyweapon;andthe   victimsufferedseriousbodilyinjury.Thus,anespeciallyaggravatedkidnappingwas x  committed.Seeid.3913302(a),305(a)(1),(4).Itisfurtherwithoutdisputethatthevictim ^  wasintentionallykilledwithpremeditation.Thus,apremeditatedfirstdegreemurderwas D  committed.Seeid.3913202(a)(1).Theonlyissuerelatingtosufficiencyoftheevidenceis *z  whetherthedefendantwascriminallyresponsiblefortheconductofthosewhoactually ` committedorconsummatedtheseoffenses.Seeid.3911402(2). F   Webeginourdetailedanalysisoftheevidenceinthiscasebyreiteratingthatour  standardofexaminingtheevidenceinalightmostfavorabletothestateincludes allreasonable  andlegitimateinferencesthatmaybedrawntherefrom.Statev.Smith,24S.W.3d274,279  (Tenn.2000)(citingCabbage,571S.W.2dat835).Thus,werecognizethatjurorsmayevaluate t theevidenceinlightoftheircommonexperiencesinlifeandtheircommonsense.SeeLiakasv. Z State,286S.W.2d856,85859(Tenn.1956). @   Viewingtheevidenceinalightmostfavorabletothestate,theevidenceestablishedthe  \ defendantwasahighrankingGangsterDisciple.Hewasportrayedaschiefofsecurityforthe B entirecityofMemphis.UponhisarrivalatBlacksapartment,heorderedfellowGangster ( Disciplesto snagthevictimfor GDarrest.SeveralGangsterDisciples,inparadelike  fashion,broughtthevictimbeforethedefendant.Thedefendantinitiatedabeatingofthevictim  byhittinghimnumeroustimes;otherssubsequentlyjoinedinthebeating.Thedefendant   demandedthatthevictimtellhimthelocationoftheViceLords.Reluctantly,thevictim p!  revealedalocation.ThedefendantthenorderedsomeGangsterDisciplestoscoutthelocation V"! andreturnwiththeirfindings,whichtheydid.Theevidencefurtherindicatedthatthedefendant <#" wasangryuponlearningthattheViceLordswerenotatthelocationdescribedbythevictim. "$r# Thedefendant,PrentissPhillips,andKevinWilkinswereeachpartofatelephoneconversation %X $ withKaos,whowassuperiorinranktothedefendant.Immediatelyafterthisconversation,the %>!% defendantdirectedPhillipsandWilkinstoeachpickthreemenandtakethevictim fishing.He &$"& furtherstated, Yallknowwhattodo.Thus,itwasreasonableforthejurytoassumethe ' #' defendant,Phillips,andWilkinswereallawareofKaossdirective,andthedefendantordered (#( thatPhillipsandWilkinsberesponsibleforcarryingoutthatdirective.AlthoughShippthought )$) theordertotakethevictim fishingonlymeantphysicalabuse,Shippwasnotapartofthe l*%* conversationwithKaos. R+&+   8,',   ThejurycouldfurtherinferthatWilkins,whohadbeenapartofthephoneconversation   andknewthevictimwastobekilled,wasorderedbythedefendanttocarryoutthedirective.  OneofthefirstthingssaidtothevictimattheparkwasfromWilkins,whowastheranking | GangsterDiscipleattheparkandwhoaskedthevictimifhehadanylastwords.Themurder b wasthenaccomplishedunderWilkinsdirection. H #XyXXtXyg9#tXyXXXy  Asitrelatestothechargeofpremeditatedfirstdegreemurder,thestatewasrequiredto  d establishbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthedefendantingivingtheseordershadthespecific  J intentthatthevictimbemurdered.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3911402(2).Viewingtheevidence  0 inalightmostfavorabletothestate,weconcludearationaltrieroffactcouldfindthedefendant    andWilkinsgotthedirectivefromKaosthatthevictimwastobekilled;thedefendantordered    Wilkins(andPhillips)tocarryoutthedirective;andWilkins,asubordinateofthedefendant,   personallysupervisedthemurder.Thejurycouldfurtherrationallyconcludefromtheevidence x  thattheGangsterDiscipleswasanorganizationstructuredaccordingtorankandthatorders ^  givenbythoseofsuperiorrankshouldbeobeyedinordertoavoidseveresanctions.Thus,the D  jurycouldrationallyconcludeWilkinscarriedouttheorderofthedefendant. *z    WhatstartedoutasariftbetweenaViceLordandaGangsterDiscipleculminatedinthe F gatheringofathrongofGangsterDisciples,heavilyarmedandbentonretaliation.The , retaliationefforthadasoneofitsleadersthedefendant.ThelowerrankingGangsterDisciples  followednotonlythedefendantsorders,buthisexampleofviolence.    Accordingly,theevidenceissufficienttosupporttheconvictionforcriminal t responsibilityforpremeditatedfirstdegreemurder. Z #XyXXtXyJ#tXyXXXy  Astothedefendantsconvictionforespeciallyaggravatedkidnapping,weconcludethe &v evidenceissufficient.Viewingtheevidenceinalightmostfavorabletothestate,thedefendant  \ orderedthevictimtobebroughttotheapartmentwherenumerousGangsterDiscipleshad B weapons.Thedefendantseverelybeatthevictimwithhisfistandabroomstick;othersbeathim ( aswell.ThedefendantorderedthatGreenbetakenupstairswherenumerousgangmembers  threatenedhimwithweaponspointedathishead.ThedefendantorderedGreenbetaken   fishingandtoldhisfellowGangsterDisciples, Yallknowwhattodo.Wilkinsfollowed   thoseorders,tookthevictimtoBellevuePark,andsupervisedthemurder.Thisevidenceis p!  morethansufficienttosupportthedefendantsconvictionforespeciallyaggravatedkidnapping. V"!  C.AccompliceCorroboration  "$r#   Thedefendantarguesthattheevidenceisinsufficientbecauseitconsistedof %>!% uncorroboratedaccomplicetestimony.Additionally,heassertsthatthetrialcourtfailedto &$"& instructthejurythat(a)accomplicetestimonycannotbecorroboratedbyevidencefromanother ' #' accomplice;(b)onlyanonaccomplicecancorroboratethetestimonyofanaccomplice;(c) (#( JarvisShippwasanaccompliceasamatteroflaw;and(d)thejurymustdecidewhether )$) ChristopherJamesandShaunWashingtonwereaccomplices. l*%* @22% 1.Waiver  8,',  -n(-   Thestatecontendsthatthedefendanthaswaivedtheseissuesforfailingtosubmit  proposedinstructionsonaccomplicetestimony.SeeStatev.Anderson,985S.W.2d9,17(Tenn.  Crim.App.1997)(holdingthefailuretorequestaccompliceinstructionwaivesissue);Statev. | Foster,755S.W.2d846,84849(Tenn.Crim.App.1988)(notingthedefendantsresponsibility b torequestinstruction;failureconstituteswaiver). H   Ininstructingthejuryregardingaccomplicetestimony,thetrialcourtutilizedthepattern  d juryinstruction.SeeT.P.I."CRIM.42.09(4thed.1995).Thetrialcourtfurtherinstructedthe  J jurythattheyweretodeterminewhetherthewitness,JarvisShipp,wasanaccomplicetothe  0 allegedcrime.Thepatternchargedoesnotcontainaspecificprovisionthataccomplice    testimonycannotbecorroboratedbyotheraccomplicetestimony.      Therecordreflectsthetrialcourtadvisedthepartiesthatitwouldbeinstructingon x  accomplicetestimony.Therewerenospecialrequests.Afterinstructingthejuryandpriorto ^  jurydeliberations,therewerenoobjectionsandnospecialrequests.TennesseeRuleofCriminal D  Procedure30(b)providesthatthepartiesaretobegivenanopportunitytoobjecttothecontent *z  ofjuryinstructionsorthefailuretogiverequestedinstructions;however,thefailuretomake ` objectionsintheseinstancesdoesnotprohibitthemfrombeingusedasgroundsinthemotion F fornewtrial.SeeTenn.#cdddR.Crim.P.30(b);#XyXXtXyQ#tXyXXXyԀStatev.Lynn,924S.W.2d892,89899(Tenn.1996). , However,allegedomissions#ddcdinthejurychargemustbecalledtothetrialjudgesattentionorbe  regardedaswaived.Statev.Haynes,720S.W.2d76,8485(Tenn.Crim.App.1986).In  contrasttoanerroneousinstructionorthefailuretogivearequestedinstruction,defensecounsel  cannotsitonanobjectiontoanomittedchargeandallegeitasagroundinthemotionfornew t trial.Id.;Statev.TraceyE.Stigall,No.02C019610CR00371,1998Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS Z 27,at*4(Tenn.Crim.App.Jan.7,1998,atJackson). @   Thejuryinstructiongivenbythetrialcourtwasaccurate.Thedefendanthaswaivedany  \ allegederrorforthefailuretospecificallychargethejurythataccomplicetestimonycannotbe B corroboratedbythetestimonyofotheraccomplices.Further,wediscernnoplainerror.See ( Tenn.R.Crim.P.52(b).  @## 2.StandardofReview #XyXXtXy`#tXyXXXyԈ     Anaccompliceisapersonwho knowingly,voluntarilyandwithacommonintentunites V"! withtheprincipaloffenderinthecommissionofacrime.Statev.Allen,976S.W.2d661,666 <#" (Tenn.Crim.App.1997).Uncorroboratedtestimonyofanaccomplicewitnesswillnotsupport "$r# aconviction.Statev.Bane,57S.W.3d411,419(Tenn.2001),cert.denied,534U.S.1115 %X $ (2002).Corroboratingevidenceisevidence entirelyindependentoftheaccomplices %>!% testimony,which,takenbyitself,leadstotheinferencenotonlythatacrimehasbeencommitted &$"& butalsothatthedefendantwasimplicatedinit.Bigbee,885S.W.2dat803(citationsomitted). ' #' Theindependentcorroborativetestimonymustincludesomefactorcircumstancewhichaffects (#( thedefendantsidentity.Statev.Boxley,76S.W.3d381,387(Tenn.Crim.App.2001).In )$) Bethanyv.State,thiscourtstated: l*%* 8  Thequestionofwhodetermineswhetherapersonisanaccomplicedependsupon 8,', thefactsofeachcase.Whenthefactsofawitnesssparticipationinacrimeare -n(- clearandundisputed,itisaquestionoflawforthecourttodecide.Whensuch  factsareindisputeorsusceptibleofaninferencethatawitnessmayormaynot  beanaccomplice,itthenbecomesaquestionoffactforthejurytodecide.|   565S.W.2d900,903(Tenn.Crim.App.1978);seeStatev.Lawson,794S.W.2d363,369 H (Tenn.Crim.App.1990).#XyXXtXye#/XyXXXy . ~  #XyXX/Xym#tXyXXXy @AA 3.ChristopherJames       TheevidenceestablishedthatChristopherJameswasarelativelynewmemberofthe   GangsterDisciplesandhadno rankwithinthegroup.Theevidencefurtherestablishedthat,at x  the aidandassistmeetingheldattheapartment,Jameswaspunishedforfailingtotakepartin ^  theearlierfightthatinitiatedthechainofeventsculminatinginthemurder.Althoughhewas D  presentwhenVernonGreenwasbroughtintotheapartment,thereisnoevidencethatJamesdid *z  anythingotherthansustainabeatingforhisfailuretoassistfellowgangmembersearlierthat ` day.TheprooffailstoestablishthatJameswasanaccomplicetothemurderandkidnappingof F VernonGreen.x W#  1      ׀Thus,#XyXXtXym#thedefendantsargumentthatthetrialcourtshouldhavesubmittedan , instructiontothejuryastowhetherChristopherJameswasanaccompliceiswithoutmerit.  @* @AA 4.ShaunWashington     ThedefendantcontendsShaunWashingtonsidentificationshouldbeconsidered Z accomplicetestimony.Washingtondidnottestifyasawitnessinthismatter.SergeantWilliam @ AshtontestifiedthatChristopherJamesidentifiedthedefendantinaphotolineupastheperson &v whomJamesreferredtoas Shaun.DefensecounselaskedSergeantAshtononcross  \ examinationifanyoneelseidentifiedthedefendantinthephotolineup.SergeantAshton,in B responsetothisquestion,statedthatWashingtonhadidentifiedthedefendantasbeingpresentat ( theapartmentonthenightofthemurder.TherewasnorequestthatWashingtonbeincludedin  theaccompliceinstruction.Thisissueiswaived.  @ [Deleted:5.JarvisShipp] p!   tXyXXXy #XyXXtXyv#/XyXXXyD.IdentificationEvidence  "$r# #bddd  Withinhischallengetothesufficiencyoftheevidence,thedefendantchallengesthe %>!% following#ddbdidentifications:(1)theidentificationmadebyChristopherJamesusingaphotograph &$"& array;(2)theidentificationmadebyShaunWashington;(3)thetestimonyofJarvisShipp;and ' #' (4)thetestimonyofNicholeBlack #XyXX/Xyv#tXyXXXy .WiththeexceptionofthechallengetoShipps_testimony, (#( theseissuesarediscussedinissuesix,infra.RegardingShipp,thedefendantcontendsthathis  testimonyisuncorroborated.However,wehaveconcludedthattheevidencesufficiently  corroborated_Shipp_stestimony.Moreover,anyconflictsbetween_Shipp_stestimonyandhis | priorstatementtopolicewerethoroughlyaddressedoncrossexamination. b  E.TestimonyofChristopherJames  . ~   ThedefendantallegesthetestimonyofChristopherJamesastowhathethoughtwas  J goingtohappentothevictimwhenhelefttheapartmentwas pure,baselessspeculationand  0 shouldbeexcludedfromconsiderationinthisappeal.DuringdirectexaminationofJames,the    followingcolloquyoccurred:    *,XX4 XX*8  Q:04  Whatdidyouhearhimsay?x 4 4  8  A:04   _Yall_Ԁknowwhattodo.^ 4 4  8  ...D    8  Q:04  Now,wasthisaftertheyhadbeatenyouup?*z 4 4  8  A:04  Yes,maam.`4 4  8  Q:04  Whatdidyouthink!whatdidyoufeelatthistimewasgoingon?F4 4  8  A:04  Ireallycouldntsay.,4 4  8  Q:04  WhatdidyouthinkwasgoingtohappentoVernon?4 4  8  A:04  Theywasgoingtokillhim.4 4  - ,XX,XX4 X-  Noobjectionwasmadebythedefendant.#XyXXtXyx#/XyXXXyByfailingtomakeacontemporaneous t objectiontotestimony,adefendantwaivesappellateconsiderationoftheissue.Statev.Alder, Z 71S.W.3d299,302(Tenn._Crim_.App.2001);Statev.Thompson,36S.W.3d102,108(Tenn. @ _Crim_.App.2000).#XyXX/Xyu#tXyXXXyAccordingly,absentanobjection,thestatementwasproperlyadmittedas &v proof.Statev.Stevens,78S.W.3d817app.at849(Tenn.2002),cert.denied,򀀀U.S.򀀀  \ (2003).Wefurtherdiscernnoplainerror.SeeTenn.R._Crim_.P.52(b). B   [Deleted:F.ImproperlyAdmittedEvidence]   #XyXXtXy1#/XyXXXy#XyXX/Xy3#/XyXXXy G.AnthonyIssue  V"!   Thedefendantcontendshisconvictionsforbothpremeditatedfirstdegreemurderand "$r# especiallyaggravated_kidnapping_Ԁviolatedueprocessbecausethe_kidnapping_Ԁwasincidentalto %X $ themurder.Wedisagree. %>!%   Aseparateconvictionfor_kidnapping_Ԁmayviolatedueprocesswhenthe_kidnapping_Ԁis ' #'  essentiallyincidentaltotheaccompanyingfelonyconvictionandisnot significantenough,in (#( andofitself,towarrantindependentprosecution.Statev.Anthony,817S.W.2d299,306 )$) (Tenn.1991).Inexaminingthisissue,wemustfirstdeterminewhetherthemovementor l*%* confinementemployedwasbeyondthatwhichwasnecessarytocommittheaccompanying R+&+ felony.Statev.Dixon,957S.W.2d532,535(Tenn.1997).Ifso,wemustnextdetermine 8,', whethertheadditionalmovementorconfinement: (1)preventedthevictimfromsummoning -n(- help;(2)lessenedthedefendantsriskofdetection;or(3)createdasignificantdangeror  increasedthevictimsriskofharm.Id.    Weconcludethedefendantsdualconvictionsforespeciallyaggravated_kidnapping_Ԁand b premeditatedfirstdegreemurderdonotviolatedueprocess.Themovementandconfinementof H Greenwasbeyondthatnecessarytocommitthemurder.Furthermore,theadditional . ~ confinementandmovementpreventedGreenfromsummoninghelpandlessenedtheriskof  d detection.Therefore,theespeciallyaggravated_kidnapping_Ԁwasnot essentiallyincidentalto  J thepremeditatedmurder.  0 @  [Deleted:IV.PROSECUTORIALINCONSISTENCY]     #XyXX/Xyw# @*  tXyXXXy@ V.PROSECUTORIALMISCONDUCTANDWITNESSJARVISSHIPP  ^  ̚ #XyXXtXy#   Thedefendantcomplainsthatpriortotrial,Shippattributedvariousactsto_Prentiss_ *z  Phillips,nottothedefendant,andfailedtoidentifythedefendantasacoperpetratorinthese ` crimes.ThedefendantspecificallyallegesviolationsofBrady,373U.S.at87,and_Giglio_Ԁv. F UnitedStates,405U.S.150,92S.Ct.763,31L.Ed.2d104(1972).Thedefendantassertsthat , theprosecutionwithheldinformationof:  8  (1)aninformal winkandanod...inexchangefor_Shipp_stestimony,by  whichthestatewouldnotseekthedeathpenaltyagainsthimifhewenttotrial; t andZ   8  (2)thetranscriptofahearingheldon_Shipp_smotiontosuppresshisown &v statementgiventopolice(whichhadbeendenied),inwhichShipptestifiedtoa  \ motivewhyhehadconfessedtothecrime[which]wasdramaticallyatoddswith B theclaimedmotiveshe(andtheStatesprosecutors)toldthejurywerehis (  courageousreasonstodoso(remorseforthevictimandadesiretomake  amendstothevictimsfamily).   Thedefendantclaimsherequestedexculpatoryinformationduringpretrialdiscovery;thestate p!  failedtoproducetheinformation;andtheinformationwouldhaveimpeached_Shipp_s V"! credibility. <#"   Thedutytodiscloseexculpatoryevidenceextendstoall favorableinformation %X $ irrespectiveofwhethertheevidenceisadmissibleattrial.Johnsonv.State,38S.W.3d52,56 %>!% (Tenn.2001).TheprosecutionsdutytodiscloseBradymaterialalsoappliestoevidence &$"& affectingthecredibilityofagovernmentwitness,includingevidenceofanyagreementor ' #' promiseofleniencygiventothewitnessinexchangeforfavorabletestimonyagainstanaccused. (#( /XyXXXy_Giglio_,#XyXX/Xy#/XyXXXyԀ405U.S.at154;Johnson,38S.W.3dat56.#XyXX/Xy #/XyXXXyWhile#XyXX/Xy#/XyXXXyBrady#XyXX/Xyʙ#/XyXXXyԀdoesnotrequirethestateto )$) investigateforthedefendant,itdoesburdentheprosecutionwiththeresponsibilityofdisclosing l*%* statementsofwitnessesfavorabletothedefense.#XyXX/Xy #/XyXXXyStatev.Reynolds,#XyXX/XyC#671S.W.2d854,856(Tenn. R+&+ _Crim_.App.1984).However,thisdutydoesnotextendtoinformationthatthedefensealready 8,', possesses,orisabletoobtain,ortoinformationnotinthepossessionorcontrolofthe -n(- _prosecutionoranothergovernmentalagency.Statev.Marshall,845S.W.2d228,233(Tenn.  Crim.App.1992).    InordertoproveadueprocessviolationunderBrady,thedefendantmustshowthestate b suppressed materialinformation.Brady,/XyXXXyԀ373U.S.at87;#XyXX/Xy8#/XyXXXyStatev.Edgin#XyXX/Xy#/XyXXXy,902S.W.2d387,389 H (Tenn.1995).#XyXX/Xy#Undisclosedinformationismaterial onlyifthereisareasonableprobabilitythat, . ~ hadtheevidencebeendisclosedtothedefense,theresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeen  d different.Bagley,473U.S.at682(citationsomitted);Johnson,38S.W.3dat58.Furthermore,  J areasonableprobabilityisa probabilitysufficienttoundermineconfidenceintheoutcome.  0 Id./XyXXXyԀToestablishmateriality,anaccusedisnotrequiredtodemonstrate byapreponderancethat    disclosureofthesuppressedevidencewouldhaveresultedultimatelyinthedefendants    acquittal.Kylesv.Whitley,514U.S.419,434,115S.Ct.1555,131L.Ed.2d490(1995).   #XyXX/XyW#/XyXXXyTherefore, [t]hequestionisnotwhetherthedefendantwouldmorelikelythannothavereceived x  adifferentverdictwiththeevidence,butwhetherinitsabsencehereceivedafairtrial, ^  understoodasatrialresultinginaverdictworthyofconfidence.#XyXX/Xy#/XyXXXyId.#XyXX/Xyw#tXyXXXy D   A. WinkandaNodAgreement  `   Duringthedefendantstrial,JarvisShipptestifiedondirectexaminationthatthestate , hadnotmadehimanypromisesinexchangeforhistestimonyandthathewastestifyingfreely  andvoluntarily. Oncrossexamination,thefollowingcolloquyoccurredbetweendefense  counselandShipp:  -,XX4 X,XX-8  Q:04  ...Letmeaskyouthis.Doyouexpectsometype!althoughtheresnota Z formaldeal,doyouexpectsometypeofconsiderationforyourtestimonyhere @ today?&v4 4  8  A:04  Yes,becausethesimplefactImfacingthedeathpenalty. \4 4  8  Q:04  Okay.Soyoudoexpecttogainsomethinginyourcasebytestifyinghere B today,correct?(4 4  8  A:04  Ifitsintheprogress[sic].4 4  8  ...   8  Q:04  Okay.Soletmeaskyouthis.Youfeellikebytellingthestorythatyouve   toldtodaythatthatcouldhelpyou,correct?p! 4 4  8  A:04  Yes.V"!4 4  8  ...<#"   8  Q:04  AndyoufeelthatifyouhelpthemconvictMr.Robinsonthattheymightnot "$r# seekthatdeathpenaltyagainstyou,right?%X $4 4  8  A:04  No,becausetheystill!Istillcouldgototrialandtheystillgetthedeath %>!% penalty.&$"&4 4  8  Q:04  Butyourehopingthattheyconsiderthat,correct?' #'4 4  8  A:04  Yes.(#(4 4  8  Q:04  Andyourehopingthatthatconsiderationwillresultinyou[sic]notlooking )$) atadeathpenaltysituation,correct?l*%*4 4  8  A:04  Correct.R+&+4 4   - ,XX,XX4 X- 8,',   Thedefendantassertsthat,intwosubsequenttrials,i.e.,Statev.AntonioJacksonand   Statev.PrentissPhillips,JarvisShippacknowledgedhehadanagreementwiththestate.During  codefendantAntonioJacksonstrial,Shippinitiallydeniedthathehadanagreementwiththe | state.Later,however,hestatedthathisattorneyhadinformedhimthatifhepledguilty,he b wouldreceiveasentenceoflifewiththepossibilityofparoleorless .Shippfurtherstatedthat, H bytestifyingatJacksonstrial,hewashopingforabetterdealfromthestate.Laterinco . ~ defendantPrentissPhillipstrial,Shippadmittedthatheintendedtoenteraguiltypleaastohis  d involvementintheevents.  Hefurtherstated, Iexpectmylifetobesaved.  J   Atthedefendantshearingonhismotionfornewtrial,Shippsattorney,GeraldSkahan,    wascalledtotestifyregardinganyagreementbetweenhisclientandthestate.Thefollowing    colloquyoccurred:   0,XX4` X,XX08  Q:04  DoyourecalltellingmewhenIaskedwhatsortofagreement,ifyouhadan ^  agreementwiththeprosecutors,doyourecalltellingmebasicallyitwasa D  winkandanod?...*z 4 4  8  A:04  Ididuse...thosewordsbutinacontextthat!likeItestifiedtoearlier,...I ` wasfortunateenoughtohavesomebodythatwasabletogivetestimony....F4 4  8  04   ` Whatmypersonalopinionisaboutthewayitsdone,Ithinkeverybody , knowswhatshappening.Ithinkthedefenselawyersknow.Ithinkthe  prosecutorsknow.AndIthinkthedefendantsknowfrombeinginjail.But  thatsthewayitsdonehere....AndasforGiglioandstufflikethat,Ithink  ЄthatswhereIuseitinthecontextofawinkandanod;...Ithink t everybodyknowswhatsgoingtohappen,butthereisneveranoffer Z conveyed.Thereisneversomethingsayingthatwewillspecificallydothis. @ Itsjustattheendofeveryoneofthesetrials,itworksout.AndthatswhatI &v meanbyawinkandanod. \4 4  0 ,XX,XX4` X0  Initsorderdenyingthedefendantsmotionfornewtrial,thetrialcourtfoundthatatthe ( timeofthedefendantstrial,Shippdidnothavea dealwiththestate,althoughShippmayhave  hopedhistestimonywouldleadtoa deal.Itfurtherfoundthestatedidnotwithholdevidence  ofa dealfromthedefendant,andthedefendantthoroughlyquestionedShippattrialregarding   apossible deal.ThetrialcourtconcludedthestatedidnotviolateBradyorGiglio.Weagree p!  withthetrialcourt. V"!   WhileShippmayhavehopedthathistestimonywouldresultinfavorabletreatment,the "$r# recorddoesnotestablishthatanagreementexistedbetweenthestateandShippatthetimeofthe %X $ defendantstrial.SeeHartmanv.State,896S.W.2d94,10102(Tenn.1995).Furthermore,the %>!% factthatShipplaterpledguiltytoalesserchargeoffacilitationoftheoffensesdoesnotestablish &$"& theexistenceofaprioragreement.SeeStatev.Williams,690S.W.2d517,525(Tenn.1985). ' #' Moreover,Shipptestifiedinthiscasethatheindeedexpectedtoreceivefavorabletreatmentin (#( exchangeforhistestimony.Intheabsenceofanyproofthatanagreementindeedexistedatthe )$) timeoftheShippstestimonyatthedefendantstrial,thisissueiswithoutmerit. l*%*  B.TranscriptofMotiontoSuppress  8,',  -n(-   Next,thedefendantassertsthatthestate,inviolationofBrady,failedtoprovideacopy  ofthetranscriptfromShippshearingonthemotiontosuppresshisstatementtopolice.Inthat  transcript,Shippaverredthathisoriginalstatementtopolicewasgivenoutoffearthathewould | beplacedinapodwithmembersoftheTravelingViceLords.Thedefendantclaimsthat b Shippsmotiveoffearingivingthestatementwasatoddswithhisallegednoblemotiveof H testifyingattrial,whichwas totellthetruthonmybehalfandonbehalfofthevictimsfamily. . ~   Initsorderdenyingthemotionfornewtrial,thetrialcourtfoundthisinformationwould  J nothaveaffectedtheverdict.Welikewiseseelittlebenefitthatwouldhavebeenderivedfrom  0 pointingouttothejurythatShippsmotiveforgivingthepretrialstatementwasfear,whereas    hisallegedmotivefortestifyingattrialwasmorenoble.Infact,itwasthedefendantsposition    attrialthatthecontentsofShippspretrialstatement,whichdidnotmentionanyinvolvementby   thedefendant,wasaccurate. x    Regardless,weconcludethistranscriptdoesnotmeettheBagleytestformateriality. D  ThetrialcourtnotedShipptestifiedhehopedtogainsomefavorwiththestatethroughhis *z  testimony.ThetrialcourtfoundthatdefensecounselhadquestionedShippextensively ` regardinginconsistenciesbetweenhisstatementtopoliceandhistestimonyattrial. F Accordingly,weconcludetherewasnoreasonableprobabilitythat,hadthisevidencebeen , disclosed,theresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent.SeeBagley,473U.S.at682.  Thefailuretorevealthistranscriptdidnotunderminetheconfidenceintheoutcomeofthetrial.  Id. W#  2        #XyXXtXy¤#  ThedefendantalsocontendsthatbyfailingtoprovidethetranscripttoShipps Z suppressionhearingattheconclusionofShippstestimony,thestateviolatedTennesseeRuleof @ CriminalProcedure26.2byfailingtoprovidewhatiscommonlyreferredtoasJencksmaterial. W#  3       &v   Rule26.2(a)providesthat: B 8  Afterawitnessotherthanthedefendanthastestifiedondirectexamination,the ( trialcourt,onmotionofapartywhodidnotcallthewitness,shallorderthe  attorneyforthestateorthedefendantandthedefendantsattorney,asthecase  maybe,toproduce,fortheexaminationanduseofthemovingparty,any   statementofthewitnessthatisintheirpossessionandthatrelatestothesubject p!  matterconcerningwhichthewitnesshastestified.V"!   ЇA statementofawitnessincludes [a]writtenstatementmadebythewitnessthatissignedor  otherwiseadoptedorapprovedbythewitness.Tenn.R.Crim.P.26.2(g).    NumerousfederalcourtshaveheldthatpriortestimonydoesnotqualifyasJencks b materialbecausethewitnesssstatementsareamatterofpublicrecord.See,e.g.,UnitedStates H v.Chanthadara,230F.3d1237,125455(10thCir.2000)(holdingthatthepriortrialtestimony . ~ ofanexpertwitnesswasnotJencksmaterial),cert.denied,534U.S.992(2001);UnitedStatesv.  d Jones,160F.3d473,479n.5(8thCir.1998)(notingthatmattersofpublicrecorddonotfall  J withinthescopeoftheJencksAct);UnitedStatesv.Isgro,974F.2d1091,1095(9thCir.1992)  0 (statingthat trialtestimonyisnotwithinthescopeoftheJencksAct),cert.denied,507U.S.    985(1993);UnitedStatesv.Harris,542F.2d1283,1293(7thCir.1976)(same),cert.denied,    430U.S.934(1977).TheTennesseeruleissimilartothefederalrule.SeeFed.R.Crim.P.   26.2.Herethedefendantcontendshedidnothavereadyaccesstothistranscript.Weneednot x  determinethisissue.Forthesamereasonswefoundthetranscriptdidnotmeetthemateriality ^  testunderBagley,weconcludethedefendantwasnotprejudicedbyanyallegedviolationof D  Rule26.2. *z  ̚ tXyXXXy@kkVI.IDENTIFICATIONISSUES  F   Thedefendantassertsthatnumerouserrorsregardingaphotographarrayand  identificationswarrantanewtrial.Wedisagree.   A.SuggestivePhotographArray  t   Thedefendantfirstassertsthatthetrialcourterredinallowingasuggestivephotograph @ arrayintoevidenceoverobjection.Wedisagree. &v   1.SuppressionHearing  B   #XyXXtXy#tXyXXXy  #XyXXtXyG#/XyXXXyDuringthesuppressionhearing,thedefendantpresentedthetestimonyofCharlesPoole,who  statedhewasalsoarrestedandchargedwiththemurderofGreen.Pooletestifiedthatafterhewas  arrested,SergeantAshtonquestionedhimandshowedhimaphotographarray.Pooletestifiedthat   whenhedidnotidentifyanyone,SergeantAshtonpointedtowardthephotographofthedefendant. p!  Poolestatedthatalthoughhedidnotidentifyanyoneinthearray,hebelievedtheofficerwantedhim V"! toidentifythedefendantsphotograph.Uponviewingthephotographarray,Poolestatedthearray <#" depictedfive darkskinnedAfricanAmericansandone lightskinnedAfricanAmerican.He "$r# statedthedefendant,whowasdepictedinphotographsix,wasthepersonwiththelightskintone. %X $   SergeantWilliamAshton,thecasecoordinator,testifiedhepreparedaphotographarrayand &$"& showedittowitnesses.Hestatedhearrangedthearraybyusingthedefendantsphotographand ' #' otherphotographsofthosewhoresembledthedefendant.Theofficerthenpresentedthearrayto (#( variouswitnessesandaskedthemiftheycouldidentifyanyoneinthearray.SergeantAshton )$) testifiedheneversuggestedtowitnesseswhomtheyweretoidentify. l*%*  _ R+&+   SergeantAshtondescribedthedefendantsskintoneas lightandopinedthatallofthemen  depictedinthephotographarrayhadlightskintones.HestatedheshowedthearraytoShaun  WashingtonandChristopherJames,bothofwhomidentifiedthedefendantsphotograph. |    2.TrialCourtsFindings   d     Indenyingthedefendantsmotiontosuppresstheidentificationsandphotographarray,the  0 trialcourtfoundthatPoolescredibilitywas aboutasnarrowasitcanget.Thetrialcourtthen    stateditexaminedthephotographarrayanddescribedthearrayassixphotographsofAfrican    Americanmaleswitheithera shavedheadorvery,veryshortcroppedhairand lighterskin   tones.Itfoundthatthephotographarraywasnotoverlysuggestiveandthatphotographsix,which x  depictedthedefendant,wasnotuniqueascomparedtotheotherfivephotographsinthearray.The ^  trialcourtthenconcludedthephotographarraywasnotsuggestive,thattheofficersactionswere D  notsuggestive,andthewitnessesdidnotrelyuponanythingsuggestiveinmakingtheir *z  identifications. `   3.StandardofReview  ,   #XyXX/Xy#tXyXXXy  Thefindingsoffactmadebythetrialcourtatthehearingonamotiontosuppressarebinding  uponthiscourtunlesstheevidencecontainedintherecordpreponderatesagainstthem.Statev.  Ross,49S.W.3d833,839(Tenn.2001).Absentashowingbythedefendantthattheevidence t preponderatesagainstthejudgmentofthetrialcourt,thiscourtmustdefertotherulingofthetrial Z court.Statev._Cribbs_,967S.W.2d773,795(Tenn.),cert.denied,525U.S.932(1998).#XyXXtXy#/XyXXXy @   4.Analysis   \   #XyXX/Xy#tXyXXXy  Convictionsbasedoneyewitnessidentificationattrialfollowingapretrialphotographic ( identificationwillbesetasideonlyifthephotographicidentificationwas soimpermissibly  suggestiveastogiverisetoaverysubstantiallikelihoodofirreparablemisidentification.Simmons  v.UnitedStates,390U.S.377,384,88S.Ct.967,19L.Ed.2d1247(1968).However,apretrial   confrontationproceduremaybeunlawfulif,underthetotalityofthecircumstances,theprocedure p!  isunnecessarilysuggestive._Stovall_Ԁv._Denno_,388U.S.293,30102,87S.Ct.1967,18L.Ed.2d V"! 1199(1967). <#"   Althoughitmaybesuggestive,anidentificationmaysatisfydueprocessasreliableand %X $ admissiblewhenconsideringthetotalityofthecircumstances.SeeStatev.Brown,795S.W.2d689, %>!% 694(Tenn._Crim_.App.1990).Thiscourtmustconsiderfivefactorsindeterminingwhetherthein &$"& courtidentificationisreliableenoughtowithstandadueprocessattackdespitethesuggestiveness ' #' ofthepretrialidentification.Neilv._Biggers_,409U.S.188,199,93S.Ct.375,34L.Ed.2d401 (#( (1972);Statev._Strickland_,885S.W.2d85,88(Tenn._Crim_.App.1993).Thesefactorsare:(1)the )$) opportunityofthewitnesstoviewthecriminalatthetimeofthecrime;(2)thewitnesssdegreeof l*%* attention;(3)theaccuracyofthewitnessspriordescriptionofthecriminal;(4)thelevelofcertainty R+&+ demonstratedbythewitnessattheconfrontation;and(5)thetimebetweenthecrimeandthe 8,', confrontation._Strickland_,885S.W.2dat88(citing_Biggers_,409U.S.at199).#XyXXtXy@#/XyXXXy -n(- #XyXX/Xy=#tXyXXXy  Baseduponourreviewofthephotographarray,weconcludethattheevidencedoesnot  preponderateagainstthefindingsofthetrialcourt.Althoughthecomplexionofthedefendantis | somewhatlighterthanthecomplexionsofotherpersonsinthearray,itwasnotimpermissibly b suggestive.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.#XyXXtXy#tXyXXXy H  [Deleted:B.OutofCourtIdentificationbyShaunWashington ]  J #XyXXtXy_# [Deleted:C._Nichole_ԀBlacksTestimony]    D.FailuretoGrantaContinuance D     Thedefendantchallengesthetrialcourtsrefusaltograntanovernightcontinuancetopermit ` himtoobtaina tattooexpert.Atthemotionfornewtrialhearing,thisclaimwasexpandedto F includeawitnessregardingdentalwork.Thedefendantassertsthatthedenialpreventedhimfrom , obtainingtestimonywhichwouldhavecastseriousdoubtuponthedefendantsidentityastheperson  whogavetheordersonthenightofthemurder.       /XyXXXyThedefendantassertshewassurprisedbythetestimonyofhiswitness,OfficerParker,who t testifiedoncrossexaminationbythestatethatatattoocouldpossiblybealtered.Thedefendant Z soughtpermissiontofindatattooexpertwhocouldexaminehistattoos.Thetrialcourtdeniedthe @ request,notingthetestimonywasfromadefensewitness,thecrossexaminationshouldhavebeen &v anticipatedbythedefendant,andthetestimony,atmost,indicatedamerepossibilityofanalteration.  \ Atthetimetherequestwasmade,thedefendanthadnotidentifiedanyparticularexpertnorhadhis B tattoosbeenexaminedbysomeonetodeterminewhethertheyexhibitedsignsofalteration. (   Atthemotionfornewtrialhearing,defensecounselstatedJasonOwens,atattooartist,   wouldhaveexaminedthedefendantstattoos,andhewouldhavetestifiedtotheeffectthat[defense   counselhad]representedand,also,astohisopinionastowhethertherehadbeenanycoverupor p!  erasureofthedefendantstattoos.DefensecounselstatedOwenswouldfurthertestifythat V"! coverupsorerasuresaredetectable.Thedefendantalsopresentedaprofferfromtherecordsclerk <#" ofadentist.Theprofferindicatedthatthedefendanthadpaidforgoldcrownstwomonthspriorto "$r# themurderandgavenoindicationthatthecrownscontainedlettersordesignsofthetypeattributed %X $ to _MacGreg_.Asthetrialcourtnoted,therehadbeentestimonytothefactthatgoldcapsare %>!% removable,andtheprofferdidnotaddressthatpossibility. &$"&   #XyXX/Xy#tXyXXXyThedecisionwhethertograntamotionforacontinuanceisamatterofdiscretionforthetrial (#( court,thedenialofwhichwillnotbeoverturnedonappealabsentaclearshowingthetrialcourt )$) abuseditsdiscretiontotheprejudiceofthedefendant.Statev._Melson_,638S.W.2d342,359(Tenn. l*%* 1982),cert.denied,459U.S.1137(1983);#XyXXtXy#/XyXXXyBaxterv.State,#XyXX/Xy#/XyXXXyԀ503S.W.2d226,230(Tenn._Crim_.App. R+&+  1973).Inordertoestablishanabuseofdiscretion,thecomplainingpartymustmakeaclear 8,', showingofprejudiceasaresultofthecontinuancebeingdenied.#XyXX/Xy5#/XyXXXyStatev._Teel_,#XyXX/Xy#/XyXXXyԀ793S.W.2d236,  245(Tenn.),cert.denied,498U.S.1007(1990).#XyXX/Xy#   _  Theoffertosecuredentaltestimonywasnotabasisforthemotionforacontinuance.tXyXXXySince b anappellantcannotchangetheoriesfromthetrialcourttotheappellatecourt,thisaspectoftheissue H iswaived.Alder,71S.W.3dat303;Statev.Dooley,29S.W.3d542,549(Tenn.Crim.App.2000).#XyXXtXyD#Ԁ . ~ Astotherequestforatattooexpert,wenote,asdidthetrialcourt,thatthecontrovertedtestimony  d waselicitedfromOfficerParker,whowasadefensewitness.Thewitnessonlystatedthatitwas  J possiblethatthedefendantstattooscouldhavebeenaltered.Noparticularwitnesswasidentified  0 atthetimeoftherequestforacontinuance,norhadthedefendantstattoosbeenexaminedbya    potentialwitness.Thetrialcourthadnoassurancethatawitnesscouldbesecuredbythenextday    oftrial.Wealsonotethatthebasisofidentificationbythestateswitnessesdidnotrelatetotattoos   orgoldteeth.Theissueoftattoosandgoldteetharoseduringthetestimonyofdefensewitnesses. x  Underthesecircumstances,weareunabletoconcludethetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionindenying ^  therequestforacontinuance. W#  4       D  ̚ @ [Deleted:VII.USEOFTHEVICTIMSSKULLANDPHOTOGRAPHSDURING F @77"THEGUILTPHASE] ,  0   @ (#(# tXyXXXyVIII.PROSECUTORIALMISCONDUCT  t   Thedefendantallegesnumerousinstancesofmisconductbythestate.Thestatecontends @ thatinmostinstancestheissueiswaivedduetotheabsenceofacontemporaneousobjection.The &v statefurthercontendstheseallegationsareotherwisewithoutmerit.#XyXXtXy #tXyXXXy  \  A.WitnessVoucher ( #addd  Thedefendantassertsthatvariousprosecutorialcommentsmadeinrelationtothetestimony  ofChristopher#ddadJamesandJarvisShippconstitutedimpropervouchingfortheircredibilityand   renderedhistrialunfair.Duringthestatesclosingarguments,theprosecutormadecomments p!  regardingthehonestyofbothJamesandShipp.  Theprosecutoralsomadecommentsduringthe V"! directexaminationofShippandclosingargumentsregardingShippsbraveryintestifying.The <#" stateresponds,inpart,thatthedefendanthaswaivedthisissueforfailingtoentera "$r# contemporaneousobjection.Weagreewiththestatethatthedefendanthas#XyXXtXy #/XyXXXywaivedthisissuedue %X $ tohis#XyXX/Xyf#tXyXXXyfailuretoproffercontemporaneousobjectionstothechallengedremarks.SeeStatev.Green, %>!% 947S.W.2d186,188(Tenn.Crim.App.1997);Statev.Farmer,927S.W.2d582,591(Tenn.Crim. &$"& App.1996);Tenn.R.App.P.36(a).Wefurtherdiscernnoplainerror.SeeTenn.R.Crim.P.52(b). ' #'  (#( #XyXXtXy#Ԛ B.TheStateArguedFactsnotinEvidence    Thedefendantnextcomplainsofthefollowingstatementmadebytheprosecutorduring | closingargument: [T]herewasamurder,becausetherewasanexecutionofaperson,andtheState b hasadutytoinvestigatethatanddothebesttheycantodeterminewhoisresponsibleforthat.  The H defendantarguesthisstatementtransformstheprosecutorsstatementsregardingthecredibilityof . ~ JamesandShippinto factsnotinevidence.Thedefendantfurthercomplainsaboutthefollowing  d argumentmaderegardingShipp: [T]hatwasadeathsentencerightthenandthere...[h]esgotto  J watchhisbackeverydayfortherestofhislife.Inaddition,hechallenges  thefollowingstatement  0 madeinreferencetobothwitnesses: [ChrisJamesandJarvisShipp]haventconferred....They    haventtalked.Theyhaventmet....Thesemenhavenotconferredintheirtestimonyinanyway.    Finally,thedefendantstatesthattheprosecutorimproperlyarguedthat, [SepacusTriplett],now   thatheisintherealmofconfinementwithotherpeoplewhoareinvolvedintheGangsterDisciples x  organization,allofasuddennowhehasaclearmemoryabouthisinvolvement.Thedefendant ^  contendsnoevidenceexistsintherecordtosupportthesestatements./XyXXXy D    Althoughweconcludeallofthesestatementsarereasonableinferencesfromtheevidence, ` thedefendanthaswaivedanychallengetotheseissuesbyfailingtoraiseacontemporaneous F #adddobjection.#XyXX/Xy #tXyXXXySeeTenn.R.App.P.36(a).Wefurtherdiscernnoplainerror.SeeTenn.R.Crim.P.52(b). , #XyXXtXy#tXyXXXy #ddadC.TheStateCommentedontheDefendantsDecisionnottoTestify   0  Duringclosingargumentsintheguiltphase,theprosecutorstatedt(#(# 8  [JarvisShipp]said,Imdoingthis,Imtellingyouthetruthtohelpme,butalso @ doingthistohelpthevictimsfamily.Didyouhearthatfromanybodyelse?! &v anybodyelsewhosatinthischairandsaid,Ipledtothis,youknow,Iwasthere? \   8  Didanyoneelseexhibitanyremorse?Didanyonesay,Iwanttodotherightthing. ( Iwanttodo!Iwanttoassistthisfamilyinthegriefthattheyreexhibiting,that  theyrefeelinginthismatter.Nooneelsedid.   Thedefendantnowarguesthiswasanimproperremarkonhiselectionnottotestify.SeeGriffin p!  v.California,380U.S.609,613,85S.Ct.1229,14L.Ed.2d106(1965)(holdingprosecutormay V"! notcommentonthedefendantsfailuretotestify).Althoughthesestatementsappeartoproperly <#" relatetoanattackongangmemberswhotestifiedforthedefense,thefailuretocontemporaneously "$r# objectwaivestheissue.SeeTenn.R.App.P.36(a).Further,wediscernnoplainerror.SeeTenn. %X $ R.Crim.P.52(b)#XyXXtXyH#tXyXXXy. %>!% #XyXXtXy| # D.TheStatePresentedIrrelevantEvidenceRegardingtheVictim ' #'   Duringitscaseinchief,thestatepresentedthetestimonyofChristinaGreen,thevictims )$) sister.Ms.Greenstatedsheandthevictimhada realcloserelationship.Shefurtherstatedshe l*%* attendedthevictimsfuneralandthatitwasa closedcasket.  Defensecounselthenobjected,and R+&+  thetrialcourtsustainedtheobjection,findingtheinformationregardingthecasketwasnotprobative 8,', tothestatescaseinchief.TheprosecutorthenaskedMs.Greenifshemissedherbrother,andshe  respondedaffirmatively.   e  ThedefendantassertsthatChristinaGreenstestimonywasirrelevanttotheissueofguiltor b innocenceandwasnotintroducedforanyotherpurposebuttoinflamethepassionsofthejury. H However,otherthanthetestimonyregardingthevictimscoffinwhichthetrialcourtsustained,the . ~ defendantdidnotcontemporaneouslyobjecttothistestimony.Therefore,anyissueregardingMs.  d Greenstestimonyinitsentiretyiswaived.SeeTenn.R.App.P.36(a).  J   Next,thedefendantallegesDr.Deeringsremarkthattheshotgunwoundtothebuttocks    wouldhavebeenpainfulwasnotrelevanttoadeterminationofguiltorinnocenceandonlyinflamed    thejury.However,thedefendantwaschargedwithespeciallyaggravatedkidnapping,oneelement   ofwhichisseriousbodilyinjury.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3913305(a)(4). Seriousbodilyinjury x  includes extremephysicalpain.Id./XyXXXy#XyXX/Xy}(#/XyXXXy3911106(a)(34)(C).Accordingly,suchtestimonyregarding ^  thegunshotwoundtothebuttockswasrelevant. #XyXX/Xy(#/XyXXXy D   E.TheStateMadeImproperStatementsDuringVoirDire  `   Thedefendantcontendsthestatemadeimproperstatementstothejuryduringvoirdire,which , deniedhimafairtrial.Duringvoirdire,theprosecutor,indiscussingthedifferentrolesofthe  courtroomparticipants,stated:  8  Ononematterthatweallagree,wewantafairtrial#XyXX/Xy)#tXyXXXyandimpartialjudicialproceeding. t Thedefensewantsthatfortheirclient,Mr.Robinson.Buttheresanotherpersonin Z thiscourtroom,ladiesandgentlemen.Someonethatyoucantsee.Andthatisthe @ victim.&v!! Thedefenseobjectedandthetrialcourtinstructedtheprosecutortoaskthejurorsaquestion.The B prosecutorthenstatedtothejury, Myquestiontoyou,...isthatyoukeepthatinmindthroughout ( allyourdeliberations!theresoneotherpersoninvolvedinthisprocess.Thedefendantmadeno  objection.Theprosecutorthenengagedinalengthydiscussionofthelawanddefinedvariouslegal  terms.     Theprosecutorscommentsduringvoirdirehadnoeffectontheresultofthetrial.These V"! statementswereminusculecomparedtothelengthyvoirdire.Furthermore,thereisnoindication <#" thattheprosecutorwasactingwiththeintenttoprovokeunfairbiasamongthepotentialjurors.This "$r# issuelacksmerit. %X $ ̚ #XyXXtXy+#tXyXXXyF.VictimsIdentity  &$"&   Thedefendantcontendsthestateengagedinprosecutorialmisconductinseekingtosuggest (#( thatheintendedtoobliteratethevictimsidentitydespitethelackofsupportingevidenceandthetrial )$) courtsinstructionsnottodoso. l*%*   Duringtheguiltphaseofthetrial,thestatesoughttointroducenumerousphotographsinto 8,', evidencebaseduponitstheorythatthedefendantintendedthatthevictimsidentitybeobliterated. -n(- Thetrialcourtrefusedtoadmitthephotographsbaseduponthistheory.However,SergeantAlvin  Pepperstestifiedthatuponarrivingatthescene,hewasunabletoidentifyanyofthevictimsfeatures  because thefaceofthebodywassomutilated.Uponobjectionbydefensecounsel,thetrialcourt | disallowedtheintroductionofaphotographdepictingthevictimsfaceduetoitsprejudicialeffect b butpermittedSergeantPepperstotestifyregardinghisobservationswhileatthescene. H   PriortoDr.Deeringstestimony,thetrialcourtheldajuryouthearingtodiscussphotographs  d whichwouldbeintroducedduringthedoctorstestimony.Thetrialcourtagainprohibitedthestate  J fromintroducingphotographsbaseduponthistheorybecausenoonehadtestifiedthatthedefendant  0 hadinstructedthegangmemberstoerasethevictimsidentity.However,thetrialcourtfurtherstated    thattheprosecutorcouldargueaninferencebasedupontheevidenceadmitted.      Weareunabletoconcludethestateengagedinprosecutorialmisconduct.The#adddtrialcourt x  refusedtoadmitnumerousphotographsbaseduponthistheory.Furthermore,theprosecutor#ddadcould ^  properlyargueaninferencebaseduponSergeantPepperstestimonyregardingtheappearanceofthe D  victimatthesceneandDr.Deeringstestimonyregardingthelocationandeffectofthevarious *z  gunshotwounds.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.#XyXXtXy0#tXyXXXy ` @A A #XyXXtXy:#Ԛ /XyXXXyIX.JURYINSTRUCTIONSGUILTPHASE  , _  Thedefendantclaimsthatthetrialcourtimproperlychargedthejury.Specifically,healleges  thejuryinstructionsdefining intentionaland knowingconduct,directandcircumstantial  evidence,andreasonabledoubtwereerroneous.Wedisagree. t   #XyXX/Xy:#X!XXXyUndertheUnitedStatesandTennesseeConstitutions,adefendanthasarighttotrialbyjury. @ Statev.Garrison,40S.W.3d426,432(Tenn.2000).Adefendantalsohasarighttoacorrectand *z completechargeofthelaw,sothateachissueoffactraisedbytheevidencewillbesubmittedtothe d juryonproperinstructions.Id.Inevaluatingclaimsoferrorinjuryinstructions,courtsmust N rememberthat jurorsdonotsitinsolitaryisolationboothsparsinginstructionsforsubtleshades 8 ofmeaning._Vann_,976S.W.2dat101(quoting_Boyde_Ԁv.California,494U.S.370,380381,110 " S.Ct.1190,108L.Ed.2d316(1990))#XyXXX!<#X!XXXy,cert.denied,526U.S.1071(1999).Therefore,wereview   eachjurychargetodetermineifitfairlydefinedthelegalissuesinvolvedanddidnotmisleadthe   jury.SeeStatev.Hall,958S.W.2d#XyXXX!u@#Ԁ679,696(Tenn.1997),cert.denied,524U.S.941(1998). !   A.InstructiononIntentionallyandKnowingly  `#"   Ininstructingthejuryontheelementsofpremeditatedfirstdegreemurder,thetrialcourt ,%| $ defined intentionallyas, Apersonactsintentionallywithrespecttothenatureoftheconductor &b!% toaresultoftheconductwhenitisthepersonsconsciousobjectiveordesiretoengageinthe &H"& conductorcausetheresult....Inregardtoseconddegreemurder,thetrialcourtsimilarlydefined '.#'  intentionallyandfurtherinstructedthejuryasfollows: ($( 8   ` Knowinglymeansthatapersonactsknowinglywithrespecttotheconduct *%* ortocircumstancessurroundingtheconductwhenthepersonisawareofthenature v+&+ oftheconductorthatthecircumstancesexist.Apersonactsknowinglywithrespect \,', toaresultofthepersonsconductwhenthepersonisawarethattheconductis  reasonablycertaintocausetheresult.!! 8   ` Therequirementof knowinglyisalsoestablishedifitisshownthatthe b defendantactedintentionally.H!! /XyXXXy  Thedefendantcitesaserrorthetrialcourtsinstructionon intentionallyforpremeditated  d firstdegreepremeditatedmurderand knowinglyforseconddegreemurderbecausetheyareresult  J ofconductoffenses.Insupportofhisargument,thedefendantreliesuponthiscourtsdecisionin  0 Statev.Page,81S.W.3d781(Tenn._Crim_.App.2002),adecisionfiledlongafterthetrialofthis    case.ThedefendantarguesthatthiscourtsdecisioninPagerequiresreversalinthepresentcaseas    thetrialcourtcommittedthesameerrorbyinstructingthejuryinthedisjunctiveonthedefinitionof    intentionallyand knowingly.Id.at788.[_W]e_Ԁconcludetheinstructionsconstitutedharmless x  error.SeeStatev.AllenLee_Dotson_,Sr.,No.M200101970CCAR3CD,2002Tenn._Crim_.App. ^  LEXIS884,at*12(Tenn._Crim_.App.Oct.21,2002,atNashville),perm.toapp.denied(Tenn. D  2003). #XyXX/XypG#XXy *z  #XyXL#/XyXXXy B.InstructiononDirectandCircumstantialEvidence F    Thedefendantchallengesthetrialcourtsuseofthealternativepatternjuryinstructionon  directandcircumstantialevidence.See_T.P.I._"_CRIM_.42.03(a)(4thed.1995).Itprovidesin  pertinentpartasfollows:  8   ` Directevidenceisthosepartsofthetestimonyadmittedincourtwhich Z referredtowhathappenedandwastestifiedtobywitnesseswhosaworheard[or @ otherwisesensed]whathappenedfirsthand.Ifwitnessestestifiedaboutwhatthey &v themselvessaworheard[orotherwisesensed],theypresenteddirectevidence. \!! 8   ` Circumstantialevidenceisallthetestimonyandexhibitswhichgiveyouclues ( aboutwhathappenedinanindirectway.Itconsistsofalltheevidencewhichisnot  directevidence....!!   Thedefendantclaimstheinstructionerroneouslyimpliesthat allevidenceisdirectevidence, p!  excepthearsay.#XyXX/Xy:M#/XyXXXyԀHere,a #XyXX/XyR#/XyXXXycommonsenseunderstandingoftheinstructionsinthelightofallthathas V"! takenplaceatthetriallikely..._prevail[ed_]overtechnicalhairsplitting._Boyde_,494U.S.at#XyXX/XyR#/XyXXXy381. <#" Weconcludethatthereisnoreasonablelikelihoodthatthejurorsinterpretedthetrialcourts "$r# instructionssoastopreventproperconsiderationofdirectandcircumstantialevidence. %X $  C.ReasonableDoubtInstruction ' #'   Thedefendantarguesthattheinstructionprovidedbythetrialcourterroneouslydefined )$) reasonabledoubt.Thetrialcourtprovidedthefollowinginstructiononreasonabledoubt: l*%* 8   ` Reasonabledoubtisthatdoubtengenderedbyaninvestigationofalltheproof 8,', inthecaseandaninability,aftersuchinvestigation,toletthemindresteasilyasto -n(- the#adddcertaintyofguilt.Reasonabledoubtdoesnotmeanacaptious,possibleoran  imaginary#ddaddoubt.Absolutecertaintyofguiltisnotdemandedbythelawtoconvict  ofanycriminalcharge,butmoralcertaintyisrequiredandthiscertaintyisrequired | astoeverypropositionofproofrequisitetoconstitutetheoffense.  b!!   See_T.P.I._"_CRIM_.2.03(4thed.1995). . ~   Ourcourtshaveupheldtheconstitutionalityofthelanguagecontainedinthisreasonable  J doubtinstruction.See,e.g.,Statev.Bush,942S.W.2d489app.at521(Tenn.),cert.denied,522U.S.  0 953(1997);_Pettyjohn_Ԁv.State,885S.W.2d364,365(Tenn._Crim_.App.1994).Accordingly,this    issueiswithoutmerit.#XyXX/Xy;T#    @  [Deleted:tXyXXXyX.LESSERINCLUDEDOFFENSES ] x  #XyXXtXy \#@  XI.JURYMISCONDUCT D     ThedefendantcomplainsthathisrighttoanimpartialjurywasviolatedwhenjurorGina#adddBoyd ` wasuntruthfulduringvoirdire,and,despitethesequestration#ddadorder,Boydhadcontactwithaperson F outsidethejury. , _ A.Bias/Prejudice     Duringvoirdire,Boydstatedsheworked intakeasadeputyjailerinShelbyCounty.  She t deniedknowingthedefendantoranythingaboutthecase.Boydstatedshewouldbeabletobefair Z andimpartialinhearingalltheevidence.  Duringthemotionfornewtrial,Boydtestifiedthat @ althoughthereweretimeswhenshewasindifferentareasofthejail,shedidnotrecallseeingthe &v defendantinthejail.  \   Boydstatedthatduringthetrial,shenoticedanarmbandonthedefendantswristand ( realizedhewasaninmate,althoughshestilldidnotknowwherehewashoused.Shedidnotreturn  tothejailuntilaftertheconclusionofthetrial.  Boydmaintainedsheneverhadsupervisoryauthority  overthedefendantattheShelbyCountyJail.       DefensecounselsubsequentlypresentedjailrecordswhichestablishedthatonOctober8, V"! 1998,Boydwastemporarilyassigned  toworkinthepodwherethedefendantwashousedforaperiod <#" ofthreehours.  Althoughthedutylogsheetreflectsthataheadcountmayhavebeentakenwhile "$r# Boydwasworkinginthepod,thereisnoindicationastowhotooktheheadcount.  %X $   Theburdenisonthedefendanttoestablishaprimafaciecaseofjurorbias.Statev.Akins, &$"& 867S.W.2d350,355(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).  /XyXXXyIfajurorintentionallyfailstodiscloseinformation ' #' onvoirdirewhichmightindicatepartiality,a%  #XyXX/Xye#%e/XyXXXypresumptionofprejudicearises.Id.#XyXX/Xye#tXyXXXy (#(   Thetrialcourtfoundtherewasno nexus  showntoexistbetweenthedefendantandthe l*%* juror.ThetrialcourtfurtherfoundtherewasnoindicationBoydrecognizedthedefendant.We R+&+ concludethatthetrialcourtsrulingissupportedbytheevidence.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. 8,',  -n(-  B.SeparationofSequesteredJury       Atthehearingonthemotionfornewtrial,jurorBoydtestifiedthatafterbeingselectedfor | thejury,sheadvisedhermothershewasselectedfora profilemurdercaseandwasupset.Defense b counselstatedtheyhadinterviewedthejurorsmother,whostatedherdaughtercamehomeinorder H tosecureclothingforhersequestrationandsaidshewas extremelyupsetinhavingtoserveon a . ~ highprofilegangstercase.  d   ThetrialcourtfoundthatjurorBoydhadalreadytestifiedshewasupsetandtoldhermother  0 shewassittingona profilemurdercase.Thus,thecourtsawnorelevanceinthemothers    proposedtestimony.Thedefendantmadenoformalprofferofthemotherstestimony.      Althoughwequestionwhetherthisissuehasbeenproperlypreservedduetothefailureto x  makeaformalprofferofthemothersproposedtestimony,wefinditwithoutmerit.Onceseparation ^  ofa#XyXXtXySf#/XyXXXysequesteredjuryhasbeenshown%  #XyXX/Xym#%Vm/XyXXXybythedefendant,thestatehastheburdenofshowingthatsuch D  #XyXX/Xym#/XyXXXyseparationdidnotresultinprejudicetothedefendant.Statev.Bondurant,4S.W.3d662,672(Tenn. *z  1999).#XyXX/Xy-n#ԀHere,therecordsupportsthefindingbythetrialcourtthattherewasnoshowingofprejudice ` evenifthemothertestifiedinaccordancewithdefensecounselsdeclarations.Thisissuelacksmerit. F  @ XII.THIRTEENTHJUROR/JUDGMENTOFACQUITTAL     Thedefendantassertsthatthetrialcourt,actinginitscapacityasthethirteenthjuror,should  havegrantedanewtrialbecausethe  guiltyverdictswerecontrarytotheweightoftheevidence. t Alternatively,heassertsthatthetrialcourtshouldhavegrantedhismotionforjudgmentofacquittal. Z   TennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure33(f)providesthat [t]hetrialcourtmaygrantanew &v trialfollowingaverdictofguiltyifitdisagreeswiththejuryabouttheweightoftheevidence.  \ WhenatrialcourtmakesadeterminationfollowingRule33(f),thecourtisactingasthirteenthjuror. B SeeStatev.Gillon,15S.W.3d492,500(Tenn.Crim.App.1997).Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourt ( expresslyapprovedtheverdictasthirteenthjurorintheorderoverrulingthemotionfornewtrial.  Contrarytothedefendantsargument,thetrialcourtisnotrequiredtodeletefromitsconsideration  evidencethatmightlaterbefoundtobeinadmissible.     Thedefendantalsoarguesthatthetrialcourterredbyfailingtogranthismotionforjudgment V"! ofacquittal.SeeTenn.R.Crim.P.29.Thiscourthasnotedthat [i]ndealingwithamotionfora <#" judgmentofacquittal...thetrialjudgeisconcernedonlywiththelegalsufficiencyoftheevidence "$r# andnotwiththeweightoftheevidence.Statev.Hall,656S.W.2d60,61(Tenn.Crim.App.1983). %X $ Thestandardforreviewingthedenialorgrantofamotionforjudgmentofacquittalisanalogousto %>!% thestandardemployedwhenreviewingthesufficiencyoftheconvictingevidenceafteraconviction &$"& hasbeenimposed./XyXXXyԀSeeStatev.Ball,#XyXX/Xyx#/XyXXXyԀ973S.W.2d288,292(Tenn.Crim.App.1998).#XyXX/Xyvx#tXyXXXyThus,our ' #' reviewofthisissueisencompassedwithinourpreviousreviewofthesufficiencyoftheevidence. (#( #XyXXtXyx# @   [Deleted:XIII.CUMULATIVEERROR ] l*%*  tXyXXXy  XIV.SENTENCEFORESPECIALLYAGGRAVATEDKIDNAPPING -n(- Dz  Thedefendantdoesnotchallengethelengthofhistwentyfiveyearsentenceforespecially  aggravatedkidnapping.However,hearguesthetrialcourtsorderthatitrunconsecutivelytothe | sentenceofdeathisflawedinthatthetrialcourtfailedtomaketherequisitefindingsforconsecutive b sentencing.SeeStatev.Imfeld,70S.W.3d698,70809(Tenn.2002)#XyXXtXy%z#tXyXXXy;Statev.Lane,3S.W.3d456, H 460(Tenn.1999);Statev.Wilkerson,905S.W.2d933,939(Tenn.1995)#XyXXtXy|#tXyXXXy. . ~   Atrialcourtmayimposeconsecutivesentencinguponadeterminationthatoneormoreof  J thecriteriasetforthinTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4035115(b)exist.#XyXXtXya}#/XyXXXyThissectionpermits  0 thetrialcourttoimposeconsecutivesentencesifthecourtfinds,amongothercriteria,that the    defendantisa% U #XyXX/Xy~#%UU/XyXXXydangerousoffenderwhosebehaviorindicateslittleornoregardforhumanlife,andno    hesitationaboutcommittingacrimeinwhichtherisktohumanlifeishigh.Tenn.CodeAnn.#XyXX/Xy#/XyXXXy#XyXX/Xy#/XyXXXy40   35115(b)(4).However,beforeorderingthedefendanttoserveconsecutivesentencesonthebasis x  thatheisa#XyXX/Xy#dangerousoffender,thetrialcourtmustfindthattheresultingsentenceisreasonably ^  relatedtotheseverityofthecrimesandnecessarytoprotectthepublicagainstfurthercriminal D  conduct.SeeImfeld,70S.W.3dat70809;Wilkerson,905S.W.2dat939. *z    Basedonourreviewoftherecord,weconcludethetrialcourtsfindingsparallelthe F requirementsofthestatuteaddressingconsecutivesentencingandWilkerson.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. , #cddd4035115(b)(4);Wilkerson,905S.W.2dat93839.Thetrialcourtimposedconsecutivesentencing  #ddcdbasedonitsfindingthatthedefendantwasadangerousoffender.Itfurtherfoundtheresulting  sentencewasreasonablyrelatedtotheseverityofthecrimesduetothemannerinwhichthevictim  wasbeatenandhumiliatedpriortohisdeath.Thetrialcourtalsospecificallyfoundsocietyneeded t tobeprotectedfromthedefendant.Thetrialcourtsfindingsaresupportedbytherecordbasedon Z thedefendantsconduct. @ @>> [Deleted:ANALYSISOFISSUESPRESENTEDPENALTYPHASE ] ( ̚ tXyXXXy@XV.CHALLENGESTOTHE(i)(5)AND(i)(7)AGGRAVATORS ]     Thedefendantchallengestheconstitutionalityofboththe(i)(5)and(i)(7)aggravatingfactors. V"! SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3913204(i)(5),(7).Wedisagreewiththedefendantscontentions. <#"  A.(i)(5)AggravatorUnconstitutionallyVagueandOverbroad %X $ #cddd  #XyXXtXyB#tXyXXXy Thedefendantarguesthatthe heinous,atrocious,orcruelaggravatorisvagueandoverbroad. &$"& #ddcdHowever,oursupremecourthasrejectedthisargument.Statev.Keen,31S.W.3d196,211(Tenn. ' #' 2000),cert.denied,532U.S.907(2001). #XyXXtXyn#Ԁ (#(   Hefurtherassertsthatthejuryinstruction,asgiven,isnotaunitaryinstruction.Oursupreme l*%* courthaspreviouslystatedthatthephrase especiallyheinous,atrocious,orcruelisaunitary R+&+ concept,Statev.VanTran,864S.W.2d465,479(Tenn.1993),cert.denied,511U.S.1046(1994), 8,', which maybeprovedundereitheroftwoprongs:tortureorseriousphysicalabuse,Keen,31 -n(- S.W.3dat209(citationsomitted).Further,ourstatesupremecourthaspreviouslyfoundthe  defendantsargumentthatthejurychargedeprivedhimofaunanimousjuryverdicttobewithout  merit.Statev.Sims,45S.W.3d1,18(Tenn.),cert.denied,534U.S.956(2001). |  B.(i)(5)AggravatorFailingtoMeaningfullyNarrowPool  H   Thedefendantarguesthatthe(i)(5)aggravator,eitheraloneorcombinedwiththe(i)(7)  d aggravator,failstomeaningfullynarrowtheclassofdeatheligibledefendants.TheTennessee  J SupremeCourthasrejectedthisargument.SeeTerryv.State,46S.W.3d147,159(Tenn.),cert.  0 denied,534U.S.1023(2001).     [Deleted:C.(i)(5)and(i)(7)AggravatorsVicariousApplication]    @A A  XVI./XyXXXyԀDEFENDANTSPRIORARREST  D    Thedefendantnextassertsthetrialcourterredinfailingtograntamistrialwhen,duringthe ` sentencingphase,thestateimproperlyaskedadefensewitnessaboutthedefendants priorarrest. F Thedefendantpresentedhissisterstestimonyconcerninghisrelationshipwithhisfamily.  Oncross , examination,thestateaskedthedefendantssisterwhethershewasawareofthedefendantsprior  arrest  .Thetrialcourtsustainedthedefendantsobjectionand  instructedthejurytodisregardthe  questionandanswer.  #XyXX/Xy#tXyXXXy  #XyXXtXy*#/XyXXXyAlthoughwehavedifficultyunderstandingwhyaprosecutorwouldasksuchaquestionin Z thepenaltyphaseofacapitaltrialwithoutpriorcourtapproval,wefailtofindanyresultingprejudice @ inlightofthetrialcourtspromptcurativeinstruction.#XyXX/Xyx#/XyXXXy &v #XyXX/Xy#Ԛ  Ӛ XVII.PREJUDICIALINFORMATIONREACHINGTHEJURY B ;A.ListofAggravatingCircumstances    Thedefendantarguesthatthetrialcourtimproperlyreadtothejuryallthepossible   aggravatingcircumstancesduringjuryselectionandnotjustthetworelieduponbythestate.  The p!  recordreflectsthatthetrialcourtdidrecitetothevenireduringthejuryselectionprocesstheentire V"! listofavailablestatutoryaggravatingcircumstances. <#"   Itiserrorforthetrialcourttoinstructthejuryoninapplicableaggravatingcircumstances. %X $ Statev.Blanton,975S.W.2d269,281(Tenn.1998),cert.denied,525U.S.1180(1999).However, %>!% ttXyXXXyheentirelistofaggravatingcircumstanceswasnotsubmittedtothejuryaspartoftheinstructions &$"& priortodeliberations.Itwassimplypartoftheexplanatoryportionofthetrialcourtsdiscussion ' #' withthevenire.Atthecloseoftheproofatthesentencingphase,thejurywasproperlyinstructed (#( onlyastothetwoaggravatingfactorsrelieduponbythestate.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. )$) t1XtXy#1t1訙#/11#1/1##XyX1賛# B.UseofEspeciallyAggravatedKidnappingtoEnhancePunishment  ++{&+   ,a',   Thedefendantcomplainsthatthetrialcourtpermittedtheprosecutiontoimproperlysuggest   thatthefelonymurderaggravator,whichwasbasedupontheunderlyingespeciallyaggravated  kidnapping,shouldbegivenextraweightagainstanymitigators.Specifically,thedefendantcites | tothestatesargument, Youvealreadycometothisdeterminationthattherewas,indeed,an b especiallyaggravatedkidnappingandthattherewas,indeed,amurder.Theotheroneistheheinous, H atrocious,andcruel.Thisargumentismisplaced.Theprosecutionwasmerelyreiteratingtothe . ~ jurythattheyhadfoundduringtheguiltphasetheelementsofespeciallyaggravatedkidnapping,the  d underlyingfelonyinthe(i)(7)aggravator.  J   Thedefendantalsoarguesthattheuseofthesame seriousbodilyinjurytothevictimto    enhancekidnappingtoespeciallyaggravatedkidnappingandtoapplythe(i)(7)aggravatorwas     doublecounting,whichviolateddoublejeopardy.Initially,wenotethatthefelonymurder   aggravatoristriggeredbyamurderinperpetrationofa kidnapping;itisnotrequiredtobean x   especiallyaggravatedkidnapping.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3913204(i)(7).Regardless,thereis ^  nodoublejeopardyviolation.SeeStatev.Stout,46S.W.3d689,706(Tenn.),cert.denied,534U.S. D  998(2001). *z   C.FailuretoLimittheStatesAggravatorsto(i)(5) F    Thedefendantassertsthatthetrialcourtimproperlypermittedthestatetorelyupontwo  aggravatingcircumstancesafterdefensecounselhaddetrimentallyrelieduponthestatesopening  argumentofthepenaltyphaseindicatingitwasrelyingupononlythe(i)(5)aggravator.Thestate  indeedonlymentionedthe heinous,atrocious,orcruelaggravatorinitsopeningstatement. t However,priortothedefendantsproof,thetrialcourtheardargumentonthisissueandruledthe Z statewasnotlimitedtoonlyoneaggravatingfactor.Itfurthernotedthestatehadgivenpropernotice @ ofbothaggravators.Weagreewiththisrulinganddiscernnoundueprejudicetothedefendant. &v ̚ tXyXXXy  XVIII.PROHIBITIONFROMCONSIDERINGMITIGATINGEVIDENCE  B i  Thedefendantcontendsthetrialcourtunconstitutionallypreventedthesentencingjuryfrom  consideringrelevantmitigatingevidencebyexcludingconsiderationofevidenceofthedefendants  characterandrecord.    A.InstructiontoJuryRegardingMitigatingFactors  V"!   Thedefendantcomplainsofthefollowinginstructionregardingconsiderationofmitigating "$r# evidence: %X $ 8  Anyothermitigatingfactorwhichisraisedbytheevidenceproducedbyeitherthe &$"& prosecutionordefenseateithertheguiltorsentencinghearing;thatis,youshall ' #' consideranyaspectofthecircumstancesoftheoffensefavorabletothedefendant (#( whichissupportedbytheevidence.)$)!! Thedefendantassertsthatbyfailingtoinstructthejurythatitmayalsoconsider anyaspectofthe R+&+ defendantscharacterorrecord,thisinstructionerroneouslylimitedthejurytomitigatingevidence 8,', relatedtothecircumstancesoftheoffense,and,ineffect,thejurywasinstructednottoconsiderany -n(- Oa    evidencerelatedtothedefendantscharacterorrecord.Thelanguagesuggestedbythedefendantis  inthepatternjuryinstructionbutwasinadvertentlyomittedbythetrialcourt.SeeT.P.I."CRIM.  7.04(c)(4thed.1995);seealsoid.(7thed.2002). |   Ajuryinstructiononmitigatingcircumstancesmaybefound prejudiciallyerroneousonly H if itfailstofairlysubmitthelegalissuesorifitmisleadsthejuryastotheapplicablelaw.State . ~ v.Reid,91S.W.3d247app.at308(Tenn.2002)(quotingStatev.Hodges,944S.W.2d346,352  d (Tenn.),cert.denied,522U.S.999(1997)).#XyXXtXyJ#/XyXXXyIntheinstantcase,we#XyXX/Xy_#/XyXXXyconcludethattheinstructions  J providedbythetrialcourtwhenviewedintheirentiretyfairlysubmittedtothejurythelegalissues.  0 #XyXX/Xy#tXyXXXyAccordingly,theomissioninthetrialcourtsinstructiondidnotprejudicethedefendant.     B.BurdenofProvingMitigators      Thedefendantassertsthefailuretoinstructthejurythathedidnothavetheburdenofproof ^  astoanymitigatingfactorswasprejudicial.Thejurorswereinstructedthatthestatehadtheburden D  ofprovingbeyondareasonabledoubtanyaggravatingfactor.Theywere