The Defendant, William Riley Gaul, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, reckless endangerment, stalking, tampering with evidence, and theft of property valued over $500. After merging the felony murder conviction into the premeditated murder conviction, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant raises twelve issues on appeal, which we have condensed and reordered as follows: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the especially aggravated stalking count of the presentment; (2) whether the trial court erred by not sequestering the jury and by allowing the trial to be livestreamed by the media outlet Law and Crime; (3) whether the trial court erred by admitting a Snapchat message between the Defendant and the victim; (4) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to present character evidence in the form of testimony that the Defendant was controlling, manipulative, and possessive in his relationship with the victim; (5) whether the Defendant was denied his right to a fair trial by the State’s introduction of his use of the video game “Call of Duty” and the related evidence that the game included “wall banging,” or killing individuals by shooting through the walls of a building; (6) whether the trial court erred in allowing Bobby Jones, Jr., to testify as an expert and to offer trajectory evidence; (7) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence of the Defendant’s uncharged criminal conduct relating to the theft charge; (8) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions for first degree murder, felony murder, stalking, possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and theft of property valued over $500; (9) whether the jury returned mutually exclusive and patchwork verdicts; and (10) whether the cumulative effect of the various alleged errors deprived the Defendant of his right to a fair trial. Based on our review, we conclude that the Defendant’s felony theft conviction in count three must be modified to a Class A misdemeanor and a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days pursuant to the savings statute. The Defendant’s remaining convictions are affirmed and the case remanded to the trial court for an amended judgment in count three.