### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs Marc h 2, 201 0 STATE OF TENNESS EE v . PRESTON RUCKER
D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C rim ina l C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. 08- 00671 Jam es C . B eas l ey, Jr. , Judge

N o. W 2009- 01650- C C A
- R 3- C D - F i l ed M arch 29, 2010

T he def endant , Pr es t on R ucker , w as convi ct ed of e s peci all yaggr avat ed r obberyand es peci al l y ag g rav at ed ki dnappi ng and s ent ence d, r es pect i vel y , t o concurr ents ent ence s of t w enty - foury ear s and t w enty y ear s . O n appea l , he ar gues t hatt he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci ent t o s uppor tt he convi ct i ons , t hatt he t r i al cour terr ed i n concl udi ng t hata pol i ce r epor tw as not admi s s i bl e as an exc ept i on t o t he hear s ay rul e, and thatt he tr i al cour ti m pos ed an e xces s i ve se n ten c e . F o llo w in g o u r re v iew , w e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n ts o f

th e trial c o u rt.
T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent s of

t he C ri m i nal C ourt A f f i rm ed A L AN E. G L ENN , J

. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he C our t , i n w hi ch J OS EP H M. T I PT ON , P. J

. , and J OH N E VER ETT W I L L I AMS , J

. , j oi ned.
L arryE

. F it zg era ld, M em p h is, T en n esse e, fo r t h e a p p ell an t, P reston R u ck er. R ober tE

. C ooper , J r . , A t t or ney G ener al and R epor t er ; R ache l E

. W i l l i s , A s s i s t antA t t or ney G ener al ; W i l l i am L

. G i bbons , D i s t r i ctA t t or ney G ener al ; and D am on G r i f f i n, A s s i s t ant D i s t r i ctA t t or ney G ener al , for t he appe l l ee, St at e of T ennes s ee.

OP I NI ON FACTS T h e v ictim , K e ir M o o re , tes tifie d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t k id n a p p e d h im , f o rc in g h im to dr i ve hi s t ruck fr om a conve ni ence s t or e parki ng l ott o an apa r t m ent i n M emphi s , w her e he sai d h e w as r ob bed and shot byt he d efen dan tand t w o co m pan i on s.-2-

T h e v ict im test ifi ed that h e h ad li v ed in M eridian , M issi ssipp i, fo r t w en ty -five y ea rs a n d w a s a tru c k d riv e r f o r S w if t T ra n sp o rta tio n . P rio r to th a t, he h a d b e e n a c o m b a t m e d ic in th e U n ited S tate s A rm y , a s a le s r e p r e s e n tativ e f o r S isc o F o o d S e rv ice s, a n d a c o rp o ra te s a le s m a n a g e r f

o r A T & T

. T he vi ct i m s ai d t haton J ul y30, 2007, he ca m e t o M emphi s t o del i vera l oad att he G eor gi a Paci fi c w ar ehous e and pi ck up s cr ap m et al at an al um i num pl ant

. A ft erhe pi cked up t he l oad of s cr ap met al , he parked his tr ail eratt he Sw i ftt er m i nal on B r ooks R oad and w ent to a r es t aur antacr os s fr om t he home of E l vi s Pr es l ey . Fi ni s hi ng l unch, he bega n d r i v i n g t o t h e S w i f

tt e r m i n a l , w h i c h h e b e l i e v e d t o b e a b o u tt w o m i l e s a w a y. O n t h e w a y, he became l os tand pul l ed i nt o t he parki ng l otof a c onveni ence s t or e t o as k a man i n t he par ki ng l ot for di r ect i ons . H e sai d t hatt he man, w hom he i dent i fi ed as t he def endant , “r an ar ound t o t he ot hers i de of the t ruck and j um ped i n t he t ruck. ” H e t ol d t he def endantt hatno o n e wa s a l l o we d i n t h e t ru c k , a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t r e p l i e d t h a t h e wa s g o i n g i n t h e s a me d ire c tio n a s th e v ictim a n d w o u ld sh o w th e v ictim w h e re h e w a n ted to g o . A f ter b e in g to ld agai n t hathe w as notal l ow ed i n t he truck, t he defe ndant pr oduced a pi s t ol , poi nt ed i tatt he vi ct i m , and s ai d, “Shutup m ot herfucke rand dr i ve. ”
T he vi ct i m t ol d t he def

endantt hathe had j us tgot t en outof t he A r m yand had a fi vey e a r-o ld so n a n d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t co u ld tak e th e tru c k a n d e v e ry th in g e lse th a t th e v ictim had. T he def

endantr es ponded w i t h t he s ame c om m and, and t he vi ct i m began dr i vi ng. T he v ict im ex p lai n ed w h y h e co u ld no t rec all w h at d ir ec ti o n they too k fro m the c o n v en ienc e sto re l ot: “I t el l y ou w hat, aft er that ha pp ened , al l I can rem em ber is l i ke tun nel vis i on . I w as j ust s c a r e d t o d e a t h , I wa s s h a k i n g . I r e a l l y c a n ’ t r e me mb e r a n y t h i n g b e s i d e s j u s td r i v i n g d o wn t he r oad, j us tbei ng s car ed t o death. ”
T h e v ictim sa id th a t th e d e f e n d a n t d ire c ted h im to a n a p a rtm e n t c o m p lex a n d th a t “it l ooked l i ke he w as s copi ng outt he ar ea. H e w as loo k ing outt he fr ontand l ooki ng i n t he r e a r - v i e w m i r r o r s . ” Th e v i c t i m s a i d t h a th e “ b e g g [ e d ] f o r[ h i s ] l i f

e . ” He t e s t i f

i e d t h a tt he d ef en d an t m ade a t el ephone c al l and “ba s i cal l ys ai d, I ’ m comi ng, I ’ m on m yw ay . ” The d ef en d an t t o ld th e v ic tim to o p en the d ri v er’s side d o o r, g rab b ed the b ac k o f th e v ict im ’s s hi r t , and pus hed hi m outof t he truck. T he vi ct i m s ai d t hatt he def endantpus hed and pul l ed hi m and s ai d “kee p w al ki ng. ” Theys t opped ata doort o one of the a p ar t m ent s , and t he d e f e n d a n t to ld th e v ictim to k n o c k o n th e d o o r. T h e v ictim d e sc rib e d w h a t h a p p e n e d n e x t: A. I wa s p u s h e d i n s i d e t h e a p a r t me n t a n d wh e n I g o t i n , s o me b o d yc a me out of a br oom cl os ett o m yl eftw i t h a r ed banda na overt hei rfac e and a not her w eapon.-3-

Q

. So at th is p o i ntw hen y ou w er e w al ki ng i n t he apa r t m ent , how m any i ndi vi dual s w er e t her e? A

. T h re e . T he vi ct i m s ai d t hat“t he guy[w ho] j um ped out of t he broom cl os et w i t h a gun, put i tt o m yhead, he pus hed me and he pi s t ol w hi pped me on t he hea d. ” H e w as told t o “l ay d o wn a n d s t a r e a tt h e f

l o o r . ” Th e d e f

e n d a n ts t i l l wa s p r e s e n t

. Th e t h r e e s t r i p p e d t h e v i c t i m, exce ptforhis unde r w earand t

- s hi r t , and “ke ptas ki ng . . . w her e more m oneyw as . ” They we n tt h r o u g h h i s p o c k e t s a n d t o o k $ 6 0

. Th e v i c t i m a s k e d t h e t h r e e a s s a i l a n t s n o tt o h u r th i m:

I w as on t he fl oorand I kept beggi ng t hem, pl eas e not t o hur t m e. I kept t el l i ng t hem I have a five y ear o l d ch i l d at hom e and I w as basi cal l yj ust cal l i ng , say i ng , “In t he n am e of Je su s, pleas e, pleas e do n’tshoo tm e, pleas e don’ tk il l me, y ou can ha ve eve r y t hi ng I have, I j us tw antt o gethom e t o s ee m ychi l d agai n. ”
T he t hr ee m en “kept t el l i ng [t he vi ct i m ] t o s hut up. T heyw oul d ki ck [hi m ] i n t he r i bs and pi s t ol w hi p [hi m ] in the head w i t h a pi s t ol

. ” H e s ai d t hat , att hi s poi nt , “[b] l ood w as r unni ng i n t o [ h i s ] e y e s a n d a l l o v e r [ h i s ] f a c e . ” Th e v i c t i m s a i d t h a t h e b e l i e ved t he defe ndanthad hi s knee on the vi ct i m ’ s back, buthe di d not l ook up beca us e he w as t ol d he w oul d be ki l l ed i f he di d. H e s ai d t hatt he thr ee men had tw o guns betw een them, and t hey w ere “p assin g ” the m aro u n d

. A fter o n e of the m en left t h e a p artm en t t o sea rch the v ict im ’s t ruck and then r etur ned, t he vi ct i m gotup and r an t ow ar d t he door , at t empt i ng t o es cape :

I r an and gr abbed t he doorand tr i ed t o tur n t he handl e, butt he doorw as lo c k e d . A n d b y th e tim e I tu rn e d th e sw itch , the lev e r, o r w h a tev e r y o u c a ll i t t o getoutof t he a p art m ent , s om ebodycame behi nd m e and gr abbed me and th e n th e o th e r t w o c a m e a n d p u lle d m e b a c k

. T he vi ct i m t hen tr i ed t o t ake a pi s t ol fr om t he as s ai l ant w ho had opened t he door , w as g ra b b e d b yth e o th e r tw o , an d th e n tried to ru n a t th e m a n w ith th e p isto l ag a in . T h e v ictim w as s hoti n t he s t om ach and “w ent out s i de

. . . s cr eami ng for hel p, ” as t he t hr ee men r an off

. H e des cr i bed how he per for m ed fi r s t

- ai d on hi m s el f:

W e ll, I to o k m ysh irt o f f , I w a s a m e d ic, so I kin d o f k n e w so m e w h a t, w h a t to d o . I to o k m ysh irt o f f , rip p e d it i n h a lf. I s tu f f e d b o th p iec e s o f

c lo th i n t he exi tand entr yw ounds as faras I coul d. A nd t hen I got up i n a bal l and br oughtm yknees to m y ch es tt o t r yt o cons t r i ctt he fl ow of bl ood, t o s l ow d o w n th e f

lo w , s o I w o u ld n ’t b le e d to d e a th

.-4-

T h e v ictim sa id th a t a m a n c a m e o u t o f o n e o f th e a p a rtm e n ts a n d “ h e ld [ a ] to w e l to [hi s ] back a nd s cr eamed at s om eone t o cal l an ambul ance . ” H e pas s ed outi n t he ambul ance on t he w ay t o t he hos pi t al , w her e, ul t i m at el y , he had ei ght s ur ger i es and r emai ned tw o and on e-hal f m on t hs. T he v i ct i m descri bed his surger i es: Q

. W hen w as t he l as ts ur gerydone?
A

. A b o u t t h r e e m o n t h s a g o , i t w a s s t o m a c h w a l l r e c o n s t ru c t i o n s u r g e r y. M yo rg a n s h a d f

a llen d o w n . I h a d a h iata l h e rn ia, w h ich w a s a g ig a n tic h o le i n m ys t om ach a nd al l m yor gans had come l oos e and t hey had fa l l en dow n and w er e l ay i ng on t op of ea ch otherand theyhad t o go i n and s ew al l m yor gans back up.
T heyr emoved al l

. . . m y m us cl es i n t hi s ar ea he r e w er e t aken out

. A nd t heyopened me up l ike a fish , bas i cal l y , s ew ed eve r y t hi ng back up a nd t hen t o o k a s t r a p o f

mu s c l e f r o m s o me wh e r e e l s e i n myb o d ya n d p l a c e d i to v e rmy s t om ach. Q

. H ow m anyor gans di d t he bul l ets tr i ke?
A

. I tw entt hr ough m y l ungs , m y l i ver , m y gal l bl adder , m ydi aphr agm and bo t h m yl arge and sm al l i ntes t i nes. T he vi ct i m s ai d t hat , w hi l e i n t he hos pi t al , he w as s how n a phot os pr ead a nd i dent i fi ed th e d e f e n d a n t a s o n e o f

h is a s s a ila n ts

. O f f ice r M yro n G ra f

e n re e d o f

th e M e m p h is P o lice D e p a rtm e n t tes tifie d th a t o n Ju ly 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 , h e a n d h is p a rtn e r w e re a t th e C a m b rid g e A p a rtm e n ts res p o n d in g to a n o th e r c a ll w hen s ever al r es i dent s appr oache d t hem and s ai d t hat s om eone had been s hotatt he fr ontof t he co m plex. A s he and his part ner ar ri ved att he scene, t hey saw t he v i ct i m “on his kn ees, k in d o f d o u b le d o v e r,” a n d h e to ld th e m h e h a d b e e n s h o t. O ffi cerT hom as J

. E l l i s t es t i fi ed thathe w as a cr i m e scene i nves t i gat orw i t h t he M e mp h i s P o l i c e De p a r t me n ta n d wa s c a l l e d t o t h e s c e n e wh e r e t h e v i c t i m h a d b e e n s h o t

. He s ai d t hatt he vi ct i m ’ s t r act or - t r ai l er w as pr oces s ed for fi ngerpr i nt s . O ffi cerE l l i s expl ai ned how t he condi t i on of t he vehi cl e af fec t ed w hetherfi ngerpr i nt s m i ghtbe l ocat ed:
D ependi ng on t he vehi cl e, how cl ea n it is , w eathercondi t i ons , for exampl e, t he vehi cl e i f i t ’ s very di r t y t hen w e’ r e not goi ng t o get any pr i nt s of val ue. Y ou m aygeta s m udge, orw her e i tappea r ed thatt he per s on w as-5-

w e a rin g g lo v e s, b u t th e re w o u ld n ’t b e a n yr id g e d e tail in th e p rin ts to o b tain a p ri n t o f v a lu e . O ffi cerE l l i s t es t i fi ed t hat he di d nott hi nk t her e w er e anypr i nt s of val ue on the vehi cl e. O n cross-ex am i nat i on, aff i r m i ng t hatno fi ngerpr i nt s had bee n found i n oron t he t ruck, he det ai l ed w hats ur fac es had bee n pr oces s ed:

Fr ont l efts i de on the ext er i orand the fr ontl efts i de, t he fr ont , t he l eft fr ontdoor , fr ont r i ght s i de, r i ght fr ont door and t he i nt er i or i s goi ng t o be the dr i ver ’ s s i de, t he r eardr i ver ’ s s i de and the pas s enger side and t he r ear pas s engers i de and the mi ddl e cons ol e and the gl ove box. Ser geantK athl een L ani er of t he M emphi s Pol i ce D epart m ent t es t i fi ed that , t hr ough t he C r i m e St opper s pr ogr am, a t i p r egar di ng t he s hoot i ng and robbe r y of t he vi ct i m had bee n r ece i ved:
I w as gi ven a na m e, w hat w e cal l a moni ker , a ni ckname and af t er get t i ng t he i nform ati on fr om t he t i ps t erI w enti nt o t he M emphi s Pol i ce D epart m entdat a[] bas e and w as abl e t o, t hr ough s om e pr evi ous r epor t s and arr es t s , come up w i t h t he name of a pos s i bl e s us pectand t he nam e of a per s on w h o w a s in th e sy ste m , tha t f it th e d e sc rip tio n , tha t f it th e in f o rm a tio n th a t I g o t from the tipster, as f ar a s the p h y sical de scripti o n an d all [.] A s t he r es ul t of t hi s i nfor m at i on, Ser geant L ani er pr epar ed a phot os pr ead f r om w hi ch t he vi ct i m i dent i fi ed the def endant

. She s ai d t hatoffi cer s pu t o u ta br oadca s tfort he defe ndantand w er e t ol d t hat pr i vat e s ecur i t yguar ds att he C ambri dge A par t m ent s had s een hi m t her e fol l ow i ng t he br oadca s t

. A t t he com pl ex, t he defenda ntw as chas ed and de t ai ned b yp ri v a te s e c u ri ty o f

f ic e rs . T es t i fy i ng as t he onl yw i t nes s for t he defe ns e, t he defe ndants ai d t hatbetw een 2: 00 and 3: 00 p. m . on J ul y 30, 2007, he w as at a m ar ket acr os s fr om t he apa r t m ent s w her e he l i ved w h e n th e v ic tim , w h o w a s d ri v in g a tr u c k , w a v e d a n d “ m a [ d e ] g e s tu re s . . . lik e , c o m e h e re .” T h e d e f e n d a n t sa id th a t h e k e p t w a lk in g a n d w a s w a iti n g to c ro ss th e stre e t w h e n th e v ictim came up behi nd hi m , as ki ng, “[D ] i d I know w her e he coul d s cor e?” A tfi r s t , t he def endant gave a negat i ve r es pons e t o t he vi ct i m . H ow ever , he t hen t ol d t he vi ct i m t o dr i ve hi s t ruck t o t he apa r t m entcompl ex. A ft er t he vi ct i m par ked hi s t ruck, t he def endantt ook hi m t o an apart m ent , “knocke d on t he door and a ge nt l eman came t o t he doorand [the def endant ] w as l i ke, ‘ H ey , h e’s t r y i ng t o gets om ethi ng. ’ ” The defe ndantdeni ed goi ng i nt o t he apa r t m ent o r b e a tin g , ro b b in g , o r s h o o tin g th e v ic tim

.-6-

Fol l ow i ng t hi s t es t i m ony , t he def ens e r es t ed.
A N A L Y S IS O n appea l , t he def

endantar gues that t he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s us t ai n t he convi ct i ons , t hatt he t r i al co u rt erred i n concl udi ng t hata cr i m e s cene r epor tw as not a d mi s s i b l e a s a b u s i n e s s r e c o r d , a n d t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n a p p l y i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s t wo p ri o r m is d e m e a n o r c o n v ic tio n s a s e n h a n c e m e n t f a c to rs . W e w ill c o n s id e r t h e s e c la im s . I . Suff i ci ency of t he E vi dence
T h e d e f e n d a n t ar g u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e a t trial w a s n o t su f f icie n t to su sta in e ith e r h is co n v ict ion fo r esp ec ial lyag g rav ated k idn ap p ing ores peci al l yaggra v ated rob b ery . In su p p o rt o f th is a rg u m e n t, th e d e f e n d a n t n o tes th a t cr im e sc e n e in v e stig a to rs d id n o t f in d h is fi ngerpr i nt s i ns i de t he vi ct i m ’ s t ruck, w hi ch, i n hi s vi ew , t ends t o s uppor t t he ar gum entt hat he w as not i ns i de t he t ruck. A ddi t i onal l y , he not es t hatt he St at e di d notans w ert he ques t i on as t o w hypol i ce offi cer s di d not chec k t he apart m ent for fi ngerpr i nt s . Fi nal l y , he ar gues t hat hi s ver s i on of t he fa ct s , t hatt he vi ct i m w as s eeki ng drugs , w as m or e cr edi bl e than thatof t he v ictim , tha t h e g o t lo st try in g to f in d th e ter m in a l.
I n cons i der i ng t hi s i s s ue, w e appl y t he r ul e t hat w her e s uf f i ci ency of

t he convi ct i ng evi dence i s chal l enged, t he r el evantques t i on of t he r evi ew i ng cour tis “ w h et her , af t er v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e p ro s e c u tio n , any r at i onal t r i er of fact coul d have f

ound t he es s ent i al el em ent s of t he cr i m e beyond a r eas onabl e doubt

. ” J acks on v. V i r gi ni a, 443 U

. S. 307, 319, 99 S. C t
. 2781, 2789 ( 1979) ; s ee a l s o T enn. R

. A pp. P. 13( e) (“ F in d in g s o f g u ilt in c rim in a l a c tio n s w h e th e r b y th e trial c o u rt o r ju ry sh a ll b e se t as id e if t he evi dence i s i ns uf

f i ci entt o s uppor tt he f

i ndi ngs by t he tri er o f

factof gui l tbeyond a r eas onabl e doubt

. ”) ; St at e v. E vans , 838 S. W

. 2d 185, 190- 92 (T en n . 1992) ; St at e v. A nder s on, 835 S. W

. 2d 600, 604 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp . 1 992)

. A l l ques t i ons i nvol vi ng t he cr edi bi l i t y of

w i t nes s es , t he w ei ght and val ue t o be gi ven t he evi dence , and al l factual i s s ues a r e r e s o l v e d b y t h e t r i e r o f fa c t
. S e e S t a t e v . P a p p a s , 7 5 4 S

. W

. 2 d 6 2 0 , 6 2 3 ( T e n n . C r i m. A pp. 1987)

. “A gui l t y ver di ctby t he j ur y, appr oved by t he tr i al j udge, acc r edi t s t he t es t i m ony of

t he w i t nes s es for t he St at e and r es ol ves al l conf l i ct s i n favorof

t he t heor y of

t he St at e. ” St at e v. G r ace , 493 S

. W

. 2 d 474, 476 ( T enn. 1973)

. O ur s upr em e cour ts t at ed t he r at i onal e for t hi s r ul e:

T hi s w el l

- s et t l ed rul e re s t s on a s ound foundat i on. T he tr i al j udge and th e ju ry se e th e w itn e ss e s fa c e to fa c e , h e a r th e ir tes tim o n y a n d o b se rv e th e ir d em ea n o r o n the st an d

. T h u s the t ri al jud g e an d jury are the p ri m ary i ns t r um ent al i t y of j us t i ce t o det er m i ne t he w ei ght and cr edi bi l i t y t o be gi ven-7-

t o t he t es t i m ony of

w i t nes s es . I n t he t r i al for um al one i s t her e hum an at m os pher e and the t ot ali t y of t he evi dence cannotbe r epr oduced w i t h a w ritten re c o rd in th is C o u rt. B ol i n v. St at e, 219 T en n . 4 , 1 1 , 4 0 5 S. W

. 2d 768, 771 ( 1966) ( ci t i ng C ar r ol l v. St at e, 212 T enn. 4 6 4 , 370 S. W

. 2d 523 ( 1963) )

. A j ur y convi ct i on r em oves t he pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e w i t h w hi ch a def endant i s i ni t i al l y cl oaked and r epl ace s i tw i t h one of gui l t , s o t hat o n a p p e a l, a c o n v icte d d e fe n d a n t h a s th e b u rd e n o f d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t th e e v id e n c e is insu ffi cien t. S ee S tat e v . T u g g le, 6 3 9 S

. W

. 2 d 9 1 3 , 9 1 4 (T en n . 1 9 8 2 ).
T o p ro v e th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s g u iltyo f

e sp e c iallya g g ra v a ted k id n a p p in g , th e S tate had t o pr ove t hat t he defenda nt know i ngl y r emoved or confi ned the vi ct i m unl aw ful l ys o as t o i nt er fer e s ubs t ant i al l yw i t h hi s l i ber tyand thatt he r emoval orconfi nement w as a c c o m p l i s h e d b y t h e u s e o f a d e a d l y w e a p o n o rt h a t t h e v i c t i m s u f f e r e d s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n

j u r y. T en n . C o d e A n n . § 3 9 -13 -30 5 (a)(1), ( 4 ).
R obber yi s t he “i nt ent i onal orknow i ng t heftof pr oper t yfr om t he per s on of another by vi ol ence or put t i ng t he per s on i n fea r . ” T enn. C ode A nn. § 39- 13- 401( a)

. T o convi ctfor e sp e c iallya g g ra v a ted ro b b e ry , the S tate h a d to p ro v e th e d e f e n d a n t ro b b e d th e v ictim w ith a d ea d lyw ea p o n an d the v ict im su ff ere d seriou s b o d il yinjury

. Id. § 3 9 -13 -40 3 (a).
A tt r i al , t he vi ct i m t es t i fi ed t hat , at gunpoi nt , he w as m ade t o dr i ve t o t he apa r t m ent c o m p lex , fo rc e d to e n ter a n a p a rtm e n t, kic k e d , p isto l-w h ip p e d , an d th e n sh o t as h e tried to t ake a pi s t ol fr om one of the as s ai l ant s . H e w as hos pi t al i zed f ort w o and one- hal f m ont hs and had ei ghts ur ger i es forhi s s er i ous i nj ur i es . H e i dent i fi ed the def endantas the m an w ho ki dnapped hi m atgunpoi nt and sai d t he def endantw as pr es entand as s i s t ed thr oughoutt he ent i r e epi s ode. T hi s t es t i m onym akes outal l o f t he el ement s of es peci al l yaggr avat ed k idn ap p ing an d esp ec ial lyag g rav ated rob b ery . B yit s v erd ict , itis ob v iou s tha t th e jury f o u n d th e v ictim ’s te stim o n yto b e c re d ib le. F r o m th e e v id e n c e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t a re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld h a v e m a d e th is d e ter m in a tio n a n d f in d , th e re f

o re , th a t th e e v id e n c e is suffici ent t o sust ai n the con vict i on s.

I I . P ol i ce C ri m e R eport as B usi nes s R ecor d
T h e d e f e n d a n t ar g u e s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in c o n c lu d in g th a t cr im e sc e n e re p o rts w er e not admi s s i bl e as bus i nes s r ecor ds

. T hi s m at t er ar os e dur i ng t he t es t i m onyof O ffi cer E l l i s , w ho i dent i fi ed a c r i m e s cen e rep o r tr egar di ng t he pr oces s i ng of t he vi ct i m ’ s t ruck, t es t i fy i ng t hatt he r es ul t s w er e “ne gat i ve” a s t o fi ngerpr i nt s , and i dent i fi ed, as w el l , t he vehi cl e pr oces s i ng s heet s , w hi ch al s o w er e “nega t i ve” for t he fi ndi ng of fi ngerpr i nt s on t he v e h icle . T h e d e f

e n d a n t th e n a sk e d th a t th e se sh e e ts b e a d m itt e d in to e v id e n c e ; an d th e S tate-8-

obj ect ed, ar gui ng t hatt heyw er e hea r s ay . T o r es ol ve the mat t er , t he tr i al cour tal l ow ed addi t i onal ques t i oni ng of O ffi cerE l l i s . H e t es t i fi ed that , w hi l e he w as r equi r ed t o fi l l outt he for m s , he w as n o tfami l i arw i t h w her e orhow t heyw er e keptand s ai d t hatt heyw er e no l ongeravai l abl e t o hi m aft erhe had tur ned them i n. R egar di ng bus i nes s r ecor ds , R ul e 8 0 3 ( 6 ) o f th e Te nnes s ee Rul es of Evi dence pr ovi des in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

R e c o rd s o f

R e g u lar lyC o n d u c ted A c tiv ity . A m e m o ra n d u m , rep o rt, recor d, or d at a com pil at i on , i n an yform , of ac t s, even t s, con dit i on s, op i nions, ordi agnos es m ade a torneart he ti m e byorfr om i nfor m at i on t r ans m i t t ed by a p e rso n w ith k n o w led g e a n d a b u sin e ss d u tyto r e c o r d o r tra n sm it i f k e p t in t he cour s e of a r egul ar l y conduct ed bus i nes s act i vi t yand i f i tw as t he r egul ar pr act i ce of

t hat bus i nes s act i vi t y t o m ake t he m emora ndum , r epor t , r ecor d or dat a compi l at i on, al l as s how n byt he test im o n yof t he cus t odi an orot her q u ali fied w itn ess o r byce rt ifi ca ti o n that co m p lie s w ith R u le 90 2 (11 ) or a s t atut e per m i t t i ng cert i fi cat i on, unl es s t he s our ce of i nfor m at i on ort he met hod or ci rcum st ances o f preparat i on i nd i cat e l ack o f t rustw ort hiness

. A s this co u rtsaid in S tat e v . D ea n , 7 6 S

. W

. 3 d 3 5 2 , 3 6 5 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ):
“R ul e 803( 6) s i m pl ypr ovi des t hatt he w i t nes s be the r ecor ds ‘ cus t odi an orot herqual i fi ed w i t nes s . ’ T ypi cal l y t hatw i t nes s w i l l be i n char ge of m aintainin g rec o rds o f th e p arti cu lar bu sine ss, bu t o ther em p loy ee s o r of fice rs orappr opr i at el yi nfor m ed w i t nes s es coul d be us ed as w el l

. T he key i s t hatt he w i t nes s have know l edge of t he met hod of pr ep ari ng and pr es er vi ng t he r ecor ds

. I f no w i t nes s i s avai l abl e t o t es t i fy , t he r ecor ds cannotbe a u th e n tica ted a s b u sin e ss re c o rd s, u n les s t h e p a r ties stip u late to a u th e n tic a tio n .” Id. (qu o ti n g N eil P

. C o h en et al. , T en n esse e L aw o f E v iden ce , § 8

. 1 1 [1 1 ] (4th e d

. 2 0 0 0 )). O ffi cerE l l i s coul d notexpl ai n w hathappene d t o t he c ri m e sce n e r epor t s aft erhe tur ned them i n or w her e orhow t heyw er e kept

. A ccor di ngl y , t heycoul d notbe qual i fi ed as b u s in e s s re c o rd s th ro u g h h im

. E v e n i f t h e c o u r te r r e d i n t h i s r u l i n g , we c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e e r r o rw a s h a r m l e s s . We no t e t hat the record on app eal do es n o t in cl ud e t hese cri m e scene report s; and , becau se O ffi cerE l l i s t es t i fi ed, bot h on di r ectand cr os s - exami nat i on, that no fi ngerpr i nt s w er e found i n the vi ct i m ’s t ruck an d the apart m ent w as not pr ocessed fo r pr i nts , i ti s unclearho w t hese-9-

for m s w oul d have been of any evi dent i ary val ue t o t he def endant

. A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude th a t th is c la im is w ith o u t m e ri t.
I I I . Sent enci ng T he def endantar gues t hatt he tr i al cour terr ed i n appl y i ng t w o m i sd em eanor c o n v ictio n s a s e n h a n c e m e n t f a c to rs in se n ten c in g th e d e f e n d a n t. T h e S tate re sp o n d s th a t th is ar gum enti s w ai ved bec aus e the r ecor d on appea l does noti ncl ude a c opyof t he s ent enci ng hear i ng. W e not e thatt he r ecor d on appeal includes a not i ce f i l ed byt he St at e, i nfor m i ng t he defe ndantt hatenhanc ed puni s hm ent w oul d be s ought , ar gui ng t hatt he def endant ’ s s ent ence s s houl d be enha nced be caus e he ha d “a pr evi ous hi s t or yof cr i m i nal convi ct i ons orcr i m i nal behavi ori n addi t i on t o t hos e nec es s aryt o es t abl i s h t he appr opr i at e r ange” and “w as a l eade r i n t he comm i s s i on of an of fens e i nvol vi ng t w o ( 2) or m or e cr i m i nal act or s . ” A ccor di ng t o t he tr ial co u rt ’s S en tenc ing F ind ing s o f F ac t, the co u rt fo u n d thes e fa ctors a p p li ca b le. H o w ev er, s i nce the r ecor d on appea l does not i ncl ude copi es of t he pr es ent ence r epor t or a tr ans cr i ptof t he sentenci ng heari ng , i t do es n ot show t he n ature of the defen dan t ’s previ ou s conv i ct i on s. Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h e r e c o r d i s i n s u f f i c i e n tt o c o n s i d e rt h i s i s s u e o n a p p e a l , a n d we mu s tp r e s u me t hat th e tr ia l cour trul ed corr ect l y . St at e v. O ody , 823 S. W

. 2d 554, 559 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1 9 9 1 ). CO NC L US I ON
B ase d o n the f

o reg o ing au tho ri ti es an d rea so n ing , the j u d g m en ts of the tri al co u rtare aff i r m ed.

_________________________________ AL AN E

. GL E NN, J UDGE