### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON June2, 200 9 S es sio n STA TE OFTEN NES SEE v. SA MU EL A RM OD WINKF IELD

Appeal from the Circuit Court for M adison County No. 07-74 Donald H. Allen, Ju dge

No. W2008-01347-C CA-R3-CD - Filed March 9, 2010

A p p el l ant, S am uel A rm od W i nk fi el d, w as i nd i ct ed by t he Sh el by C ou nty G rand J u ry in J anuaryof 2007 forfi r s tdegr ee mur der , fel ony m ur der , es peci al l y aggr avat ed ki dnappi ng, t amper i ng w i t h evi dence , and cons pi r acyt o t amper w i t h evi dence forhi s r ol e i n t he deat h of J ames Char l es H aney , a col l ege s tudenti n J acks on, T ennes s ee. A m i s t r i al w as decl ar ed at t he conclu sion o f the fi r s tt r i al i n J ul yof 2007. A ppel l antw as r etr i ed i n J anuaryof 2008. A tt he conc l us i on of t he pr oof, t he j ur yfound A ppel l antgui l t yof s econd de gr ee mur derand t amper i ng w i t h evi dence

. T he j ur ydeadl ocked on the ki dnappi ng char ge. A ft era s ent enci ng hear i ng, A ppel l antw as s ent ence d t o an ef fec t i ve s ent ence of tw enty - fi ve y ear s . A ft ert he deni al of a m ot i on for new t r i al , A ppel l anti ni t i at ed the appe al her ei n. O n appea l , A ppel l ant co m p lai n s tha t: (1) the tr ial co u rtim p rop erlyall o w ed the S tat e to a d m itA p p ell an t’ s t es t i m onyfr om the fi r s t t r i al ; ( 2) t he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci ent t o s uppor tt he convi ct i ons for s econd de gr ee mur derand t amper i ng w i t h t he evi dence ; ( 3) t he t r i al cour ti m pr oper l ydeni ed the ad m is s i on of Ter r ence M cG ee’ s M y Space pa ge i n w hi ch he c l ai m ed t o be “a r m ed and danger ous ; ” and ( 4) t he tr i al co u rt impr oper l ys ent ence d A ppel l antt o a tw enty - fi ve y ear s ent ence . A ft era thor ough r evi ew of t he r ecor d, t he j udgm ent s of t he tr i al cour tar e af fi r m ed. W e det er m i ne: ( 1) t hatt he form ert es t i m onyof A ppel l antw as admi s s i bl e underT ennes s ee R ul e of Evi dence 804( b) ( 1) ; ( 2) th e tr ial cour tpr oper l yexcl uded the M y Space pa ge fr om evi dence ; ( 3) t he evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o s uppor tA ppel l ant ’ s convi ct i ons fors econd degr ee mur derand t am p ering w it h evi dence ; and ( 4) undert he 2005 amendm ent s t o t he s ent enci ng act , A ppel l antcannotappea l t he w ei ghtgi ven byt he tr i al cour tt o enhanc ement and mi t i gat i ng fac t or s . A s a r es ul t , t he j udgm ent s of t he tr i al cour tar e af fi r m ed. Te nn. R . App. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt s o f theTr ialCo ur t a r eAffir m e d. J ER RY L. S MI TH , J

. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he cour t , i n w hi ch J OH N E VER ETT W I L L I AMS and C AMI L L E R. M C M UL L EN , J J ., jo in e d

.-2-

G e o rg e M o rto n G o o g e , D istric t P u b lic D e f e n d e r a n d G re g o ryD . G o o k in , A ss ista n t P u b lic D efe nder , J acks on, T ennes s ee, fort he appe l l ant , Sam uel A r m od W i nkfi el d. R ober tE

. C ooper , J r . , A t t or neyG ener al and R epor t er ; D avi d H

. Fi ndl ey , A s s i s t antA t t or ney G ener al ; J err yW oodal l , D i s t r i ctA t t or neyG ener al ; and S haun A

. B r ow n, A s s i s t antD i s t r i ct A t t or neyG ener al ; fort he appe l l ee, St at e of Tennes s ee. OP I NI ON O n O ct ober 19, 2006, B i l l yE ngl and l i ved at300 R ol and St r eeti n J acks on, T ennes s ee. A r ound 10: 10 a. m . , he w as l eavi ng hi s hom e and hear d w hat s ounded l i ke moani ng comi ng fr om s om ew her e nea rby

. A t that t i m e, he saw J ames C har l es H aney , t he vi ct i m , i n t he fr ont y ar d of anotherr es i dence

. M r . H aneyw as par t i al l ycl ot hed. M r . E ngl and s us pect ed the man w as drunk s o he t ol d hi m t o go hom e. M r . H aneyent ered the residenc e at324 R ol and A venue. M r . E ngl and dr ove around the bl ock and s aw t hatt he fr ontdoort o 324 R ol and A venue w as s t i l l open. I t w as col d and r ai ni ng, s o M r . E ngl and s t opped and ent er ed t he r es i dence t o chec k on M r . H aney . W hen he got i ns i de, M r . E ngl and found M r . H aneyfac e dow n on t he fl oor . T her e w er e no vi s i bl e i nj ur i es . M r . E ngl and w as unabl e t o fi nd a pul s e, s o he ca l l ed t he pol i ce. M r . E ngl and di d not hear any guns hot s or s ee any one el s e ar ound t he nei ghbor hood att hatt i m e. O ffi cer s r es ponded t o t he s cene at ar ound 10: 18 a. m . Ser geant B uckl ey Sai n of t he J acks on Pol i ce D epart m entent er ed the r es i dence and found a “l i fel ess” M r. H aneyl y i ng fac e - d o wn o n t h e f

l o o r wi t h g u n s h o t wou n d s t o t h e r i g h t l e g a n d c h e s t

. M r . H aneyw as p a rt ia lly c lo th e d a t th e tim e . A ccordi ng t o the m ed ica l exam i ner, t he v i ct i m died of m ult i ple gunsh ot w ou nd s. T her e was n o s t i p p l i n g a r o u n d t h e wou n d s , whi c h i n d i c a t e d t h a tt h e s h o t s wer e f i r e d f r om mo r e t h a n t h r e e f

e e ta wa y . Th e r e wa s n o a l c o h o l o r d ru g s i n M r . Ha n e y ’ s s y s t e m a t t h e t i me of hi s death. A s t he i nves t i gat i on unfol ded, offi cer s l earned thatM r . H aneyl i ved at324 R ol and A venue w i t h T err ence M cG ee. A ppel l antbegan l i vi ng w i t h them som et i m e i n Septe m ber o f 2 0 0 6

. T h e th re e m e n w e re stu d e n ts a t L a n e C o lleg e in Ja c k so n . T h e yre n ted th e p ro p e rty fr om M undtR ent al Pr oper t i es . A tar ound 8: 30 a. m . on t he morni ng of O ct ober19, 2006, M un dt R ental Pr op ert i es r ecei ved a t el eph on e cal l from som eon e com plai ning abo ut the tr ash in f ro n t o f th e h o u se. A n em p loy ee o f M u n d t R en tal P rop erti es, T ere sa T ri ce , ca ll ed M r. M cG ee’s cel l ph on e nu m ber a t around 10 : 00 a. m . t hat m orni ng t o t el l t hem t o m ov e t he tr ash ar ound t o t he bac k of t he r es i dence

. M s . T r i ce di d not r ecogni ze the voi ce thatans w er ed t he phone t o be t hatof M r . H aneyorM r . M cG ee. She w as as s ur ed byt he per s on t hatans w er ed-3-

t he p ho ne thatt he m essage w ou l d b e rel ay ed to M r. M cG ee afterhe g ot ou t o f cl ass. M s. T ri c e re m e m b e re d th a t th e p e rs o n w h o a n s w e re d th e p h o n e w a s b re a th in g h e a v ily. A ccor di ng t o col l ege r ecor ds , A ppel l antr ece i ved a tui t i on r efund chec k of m or e than $ 1 , 0 0 0 o n O ctob er 1 7 , 2 0 0 6

. S ev era l w ee k s p ri o r to the v ict im ’s d ea th, A p p ell an t told M r. M cG ee thats om eone w as s t eal i ng hi s m ar i j uana. A ppel l antdi d notm ake a nyacc us at i ons a t th a t tim e to in d ic a te th a t h e th o u g h t a s p e c if ic p e rs o n w a s re s p o n s ib le f o r t h e th e f

ts

. O n O ct ober 18, 2006, t he ni ght pr i or t o M r . H aney ’ s death, s ever al peopl e w er e att he reside n ce at 32 4 R o land A v en u e, i n clud ing M r. M c G e e, A p p ell an t, an d M r. H an ey . M r. M c G e e a n d M r. H a n e yg o t in to a b rie f v e rb a l ar g u m e n t b e c a u se M r . M c G e e h a d f a iled to pick up the l aun dryearl i er that day

. T he n ext m orni ng , O ct ob er 19, 20 06 , M r. M cG ee arose atar ound 8: 30 a. m . and gotr eadyforcl as s . Sever al ot hers tudent s had s t ay ed t he ni ghtatt he r es i dence , and M r . M cG ee dr opped them off a t s chool befor e goi ng t o cl as s . W hen he l eft th e re sid e n c e , M r. H a n e ya n d A p p e llan t w e re th e o n lyp e o p le p re se n t. M r. M c G e e d ro p p e d so m e p e o p le o f f a t cla ss a n d th e n d e c id e d to m a k e a q u ick trip to g e t th e lau n d ryp rio r to a tten d in g h is o w n c las s. M r. M c G e e g o t th e lau n d ry , the n q u ick ly dr ove hom e and dr o p p e d o f f t h e l a u n d r y . At t h a tt i me , M r . Han e ywas s t i l l a s l e e p o n t he c o u c h in th e liv in g ro o m . M r . M cG ee ended up bei ng aboutt en mi nut es l at e t o cl as s beca us e he de ci ded t o t ake t he l aundryback t o t he hous e. M r . M cG ee’ s cl as s w as overar ound 9: 50 a. m . A t t he end of cl as s , he r eal i zed t hathe l efthi s cel l phone athom e. M r . M cG ee borr ow ed the ce l l phone of a f r i end, J oe El l i ot , t o cal l hi s ow n cel l phone. A ppel l antans w er ed the phone, i nfor m ed M r . M cG ee thats om ethi ng had happe ned t o M r . H aney , and i ns t ruct ed hi m t o come hom e. M r. M c G e e d e s c ri b e d A p p e lla n t’ s v o ic e a s “ s c a re d .” M r . M cG ee goti nt o hi s carand dr ove qui ckl y hom e. H e pul l ed up i n t he al l eybehi nd th e h o u se , an d A p p e llan t ra n o u t th e b a c k d o o r c a rry in g a b lac k tra sh b a g a n d a .3 8 0 p isto l. I tw as t he s ame . 380 pi s t ol t hatM r . M cG ee had pr evi ous l y gi ven t o M r . H aney . M r . M cG ee tried to g o in sid e th e h o u se , b u t A p p e llan t “ y a n k e d ” h im b a c k in to th e c a r a n d in f o rm e d h im

“ w e ’v e g o t to g o .” A p p e lla n t e v e n p o in te d th e g u n a t M r. M c G e e . A pp el l ant i nst ruct ed M r. M c G e e t o d ri ve the car t o h i s gi rl fri end ’s , C i ara La sl ey ’s , apart m ent

. O n t he w ayt her e, A ppel l anti nfor m ed M r . M cG ee t hat he w as “s or r y ” but t hat

“ [ M r. H a n e y ] k e p t p la y in g w ith m e , p la y in g w ith m e a n d te s tin g m e a n d p la y in g w ith m e .” A ppel l antt ook a s t ack of m oneyout o f h is p o cket

. T he moneyw as neat l yw r apped i n t he sam e m an n er tha t th e v ictim k ep t his m o n ey . A p p ell an t den ied th at he h ad take n M r. H a n e y ’s m o n e y .At one point in thetransc ript, this p erson is referredto as “B ookie. ” 1 -4- A p p e llan t h a d e x ited th e re sid e n c e w ith M r. M c G e e ’s c e ll p h o n e . D u rin g th e c a r trip t o M s . L as l ey ’ s apart m ent , A ppel l antus ed t he ce l l phone s ever al t i m es . H e ca l l ed M s . L as l ey t o getdi r ect i ons t o her new apart m ent

. A ppel l ant al s o cal l ed s om eone named “B ooky ” and 1 t ol d hi m t o “go get[M r . H aney ] he’ s gott w o bul l et s i n hi m . ” W hen theyar r i ved atM s . L as l ey ’ s apart m ent , A ppel l ant exi t ed t he vehi cl e w i t h t he t r as h bag and the gun. H e l eft t he cel l phone and t ol d M r . M cG ee t o keep qui et

. M r . M cG ee dr ove t o t he mal l par ki ng l ot foraboutt en t o fi ft een mi nut es befor e r etur ni ng t o campus a nd a t t e n d i n g h i s r e ma i n i n g c l a s s e s . M r . M c Ge e r e c e i v e d a c a l l f r o m a f r i e n d a ta r o u n d 1 : 0 0 p . m. th a t a f te rn o o n in f

o rm in g h im th a t M r. H a n e yw a s d e a d

. M s . L as l eyr eca l l ed r ece i vi ng a t el ephone c al l f r om A ppel l ants hor t l ybefor e her10: 00 a.m . class. T h e c all ca m e f rom M r. M cG ee ’s ce ll p h o n e. A p p ell an t call ed h er se v era l m o re t i m es fr om t he phone. M s . L as l ey s ki pped her 10: 00 a. m . cl as s and r etur ned t o herapart m ent t o fi nd A ppel l ant and M r . M cG ee w ai t i ng on her i n t he par ki ng l ot

. W hen s he arr i ved, s he d id n o t g o to th e c a r bu t in ste a d w e n t d ire c tly in to h e r a p a rtm e n t. M s. L a sle yd id n o t re c a ll i f A ppel l antw as carr y i ng anyt hi ng w hen he a r r i ved. A ppel l an t as k ed M s . L as l eyfora r i de t o M emphi s . She agr eed. M s . L as l eydr ove A p p e ll a n t to M e m p h is a n d d ro p p e d h im o f f a t a f rie n d ’s h o u se b e f

o re d riv in g b a c k to J a c k s o n . Ni c h o l a s P a r k s , a l s o k n o wn a s Bo o k y , wa s a mu tu a l f r i e n d o f Ap p e l l a n t , t h e v i c t i m, and M r . M cG ee. H e re cei ved a cal l on O ct ober19 i n t he morni ng. H e w as as l eep w hen the phone r ang butnot i ced that t he phone num berw as bl ocked bycal l erI D

. W hen he a ns w er ed the p h o n e, a v o ice instruc ted h im to “g o g et [M r. H an ey ], h e h as tw o b u ll ets i n h im

. ” M r. P a rk s ig n o re d th e c a ll a n d w e n t b a c k to s le e p . C el l phone r ecor ds i ndi cat ed thatM r . M cG ee’ s cel l phone re cei ved a cal l fr om M undt R ent al s at9: 37 a. m . on O ct ober 19, 2006. A ddi t i onal l y , M r . M cG ee’ s cel l phone made an out goi ng cal l t o M s . L as l ey ’ s t el ephone at 9 :42 a.m . , r ece i ved an i ncomi ng cal l fr om J oe E l l i ot ’ s cel l phone at9: 53 a. m . , cal l ed N i chol as Par k’ s phone at10: 04 a. m . w i t h t he phone num berbl ocked, t hen made and r ece i ved s ever al m or e cal l s t o and fr om M s . L as l ey ’ s phone, b e g in n in g a t 1 0 :0 5 a .m . a n d c o n c lu d in g a t 1 :2 5 p .m . A ft ert he vi ct i m ’ s bodyw as di s co v ere d and the i nves t i gat i on began, A ppel l antw as l ocat ed by author i t i es at hi s par ent s ’ hom e i n M emphi s . H e w as l at erarr es t ed and i ndi ct ed f o rh i s i n v o l v e me n ti n t h e d e a t h o f t h e v i c t i m.-5-

A f ter h e w a s a rre ste d , A p p e llan t w a s in c a rc e ra ted f o r a tim e in th e S h e lb yC o u n tyJa il w h ile he aw ai t ed tri al

. L arry F uttrel l w as an i nm at e i n the Sh el by C ou nty Jai l a lo n g w ith A ppel l anti n N ovember of 2006. A ppel l antt ol d M r . Fut t r el l aboutget t i ng a tui t i on r efund c h e c k f r o m L a n e Co l l e g e . Ac c o r d i n g t o M r . F u t t r e l l , Ap p e l l a n tu s e d t h e mo n e yt o b u ys o me m ar i j uana. A ppel l antadmi t t ed t o M r . Fut t r el l t hat he got i nt o a fi ghtw i t h anotherm an for steali n g d rug s an d sh o t h im tw ice in the stom ac h w ith a .38 0 p ist o l. A p p ell an t eve n told M r. F u ttrell th a t h e e sc a p e d b ye x iti n g th ro u g h th e re a r o f th e re sid e n c e a n d la te r h a d h is g irlfr ien d d riv e h im to M e m p h is. M r. F u ttrell e x p lain e d th a t A p p e llan t h a d tried to c a ll s om eone t o go chec k on t he vi ct i m aft ert he s hoot i ng. A ppel l antw as w or r i ed aboutt he p h o n e c a l l s t h a th e ha d ma d e o n t h e mo r n i n g o f t h e s h o o t i n g . W h e n M r . F u t t r e l l c a me for w ar d w i t h i nfor m at i on aboutt he ca s e, author i t i es had notr el eas ed anyi nfor m at i on about t he ca s e t o t he publ i c. I n fac t , i nves t i gat or s di d notl earn t hatA ppel lant h ad rec ei ved a tu itio n re f

u n d c h e c k u n til a f

te r t a lk in g w ith M r. F u ttr e ll. A ppel l antw as or igina ll y tr ied bya Shel byC ount yJ ur yi n J ul yof 2007. A tt he concl us i on of t he S tat e’ s pr oof, t he j ur yfound A ppel l antnotgui l t yof fe l onym ur derand co n sp ir ac yto co m m ittam p ering w ith ev iden ce . A t th e c o n clus ion o f a ll o f th e p roo f, t h e jury re p o rte d th a t th e yw e re d e a d lo c k e d o n th e c h a rg e s o f f irst d e g re e m u rd e r, es p e c ially a g g ra v a ted k id n a p p in g , a n d tam p e rin g w ith th e e v id e n c e . T h e trial c o u rt d e c lar e d a m istria l. A ppel l antw as r etr i ed i n J anuaryof 2008. A tt hatt r i al , t he St at e i nt r oduced A ppel l ant ’ s t es t i m onyfr om t he or i gi nal t r i al overobj ect i on of couns el for A ppel l ant

. T he t r i al cour trul ed thatt he form ert es t i m onyw as admi s s i bl e. A tt he fi r s tt r i al , A ppel l ant t e s t i f i e d t h a th e r e c e i v e d a r e f u n d c h e c k f

r o m La n e Co l l e g e a n d u s e d t h a tmo n e yt o b u ys o me m ar i j uana. O n t he dayof t he vi ct i m ’ s death, A ppel l antw oke up l at e af t erM r . M cG ee ha d al r eadyl eftfors chool

. A tt hatt i m e, t he vi ct i m w as as l eep on the couc h. A ppel l antw al ked t o a nea rbyconveni ence s t or e t o pur chas e som e ci gar s and ra n i nt o M r . M cG ee. A ppel l ant caughta ri de t o s chool w i t h M r . M cG ee, t hen rode back hom e. A ppel l ant r ol l ed a ci garand w en t fo r a w alk. W h en h e r e tu rn e d to the re side n ce , h e sa w the v ict im ly ing o n the f loo r. A p p e llan t c laim e d th a t h e w a s sc a re d a n d w e n t o u t th e b a c k d o o r. A p p e llan t th e n ra n in to M r . M cG ee, w ho t ol d hi m t o get i nt o hi s car . W hen A ppel l ant got i n t he car , he s aw a . 380 pi s t ol on t he s eat

. A ppel l ant ’ s t es t i m onyes s ent i al l ypoi nt ed the fi ngerof gui l tt o M r . M cG ee. A tt he s econd tr i al , A ppel l antcal l ed tw o w i t nes s es i n hi s behal f. D ei dr e R obi ns on and A r s eni o H ender s on t es t i fi ed t hat t hey s pent t he ni ght at 324 R ol and A venue t he ni ghtpr i or t o t he vi ct i m ’ s death. T hey bot h r eca l l ed a s hor tverbal al t er cat i on betw een A ppel l antand t he vi ct i m over t he l aundr y . N ei t herM s . R obi ns on norM r . H ender s on fel tt hatt he ar gum ent w a s a b ig d e a l. M r. H e n d e rso n e v e n tes tifie d th a t “th e ya re ro o m m a tes a n d th e yd o th is a ll t he t i m e. I di dn’ tt hi nk not hi ng of i t

. ”-6-

A tt he conc l us i on of al l of t he pr oof, t he j ur yfound A ppel l antgui l t y of s econd de gr ee m u r d e r a n d tam p e rin g w ith e v id e n c e . T h e ju ryd e a d lo c k e d o n th e c h a rg e o f e sp e c ially aggr avat ed ki dnappi ng and a mi s t r i al w as decl ar ed as t o t hatchar ge. A ta s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he t r i al cour t s ent ence d A ppel l antt o t w enty - fi ve y ear s for t he s econd degr ee m ur der convi ct i on and si x y ear s for t he convi ct i on fort amper i ng w i t h t he evi dence

. T he t r i al cour tor der ed the s ent ence s t o run concurr ent l y , fora t ot al eff ect i ve s e n te n c e o f

tw e n ty-f iv e y e a rs . T h e trial c o u rt d e n ied a m o tio n f o r ne w trial an d th is ap p e a l w a s in iti a ted . O n a p p e a l, A ppel l ant has s ever al compl ai nt s : ( 1) t he t r i al cour t err ed byal l ow i ng hi s for m ert es t i m ony t o be r ead i nto the r ecor d; ( 2) t he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tt he convi ct i ons ; ( 3) t he tr i al cou rterr ed b yexcludi ng t he p i cture and capti on enti t l ed “A rm ed an d D a n g e rou s” fr om M r . M cG ee’ s M y S p ace page; and ( 4) t he tr i al cour tgave A ppel l antan exc es s i ve s ent ence . A n a lys is Appel l ant ’s P r i orTes t i m ony as E vi dence A p p e llan t c o m p lain s o n a p p e a l th a t th e trial c o u rt im p ro p e rlya llo w e d th e S tate to i n t r o d u c e A p p e l l a n t ’ s t e s t i m o n y f r o m t h e f

i r s t t r i a l i n t h e i r c a s e - i n - c h i e f

. S p e c i f i c a l l y, A p p e llan t c o m p lain s th a t th e in tro d u c tio n o f th e tes tim o n yv io late s h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts b ec au se h e w as “ s tr ip p e d ” o f th e a b il ityto d ec ide w h ethe r t o test ifyw h en the tri al co u rt al l ow ed the form ert es t i m onyt o be r ead i nt o evi dence

. A p p ell an t addi t i onal l yar gues t hat t he “f or m ert es t i m ony ” exc ept i o n o f T en n ess ee Rul e of Evi dence 804 does notappl yt o a defe ndant

. T he St at e di s agr ees , ci t i ng H ar r is on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 3 9 2 U .S . 2 1 9 (1 9 6 8 ). T ennes s ee Rul e of Evi dence 8 0 1 (c) defi nes hear s ayas “a s t at ement , ot hert han one m ade byt he dec l ar antw hi l e t es t i fy i ng at t he tr i al orhear i ng, offe r ed i n evi dence t o pr ove the t rut h of t he mat t eras s er t ed. ” H ear s ays t at eme n t s ar e gene r al l ynotal l ow ed i nt o evi dence

. T e n n . R . E v id . 8 0 2 . H o w e v e r, th e T e n n e ss e e R u les o f E v id e n c e p ro v id e f o r e x c e p tio n s to th e h e a rs a yru le

. See T enn. R

. E vi d. 803 & 804. T hes e exc ept i ons have be en ca r ved out b e c a u s e th e y“ b e a r s u f

f ic ie n t in d ic ia o f

re lia b ility a n d tr u s tw o rt h in e s s to w a rr a n t a d m is s io n .” Stat e v. Henry , 33 S. W

. 3d 797, 802 ( T enn. 2000)

. O ne s uch exce pt i on w hen t he dec l ar ant i s unavai l abl e i s t hat the dec l ar ant ’ s for m ert es t i m onym aybe admi s s i bl e. T enn. R

. E vi d. 804( b) ( 1)

. T hi s C our t r evi ew s a t r i al cour t ’ s rul i ng w hether a w i t nes s i s unavai l abl e under a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd

. Stat e v. Su m m ers , 159 S. W

. 3d 586, 596 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 2 0 0 4 ); Hick

s v . S ta te , 4 9 0 S

. W

. 2 d 1 7 4 , 1 7 9 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 2 ).-7-

U navai l abi l i t y of a w i t nes s i s defi ned i n T ennes s ee Rul e of Evi dence 804. I ti ncl udes in sta n c e s in w h ich th e d e c lar a n t: ( 1) i s exempt ed byrul i ng of t he courton t he gr ounds o f pr i vi l ege f r om t es t i fy i ng conce r ni ng t he s ubj ectm at t erof t he dec l ar ant ’ s s t at ement ; or ( 2) per s i s t s i n r efus i ng t o t es t i fyconce r ni ng t he s ubject m at t erof t he decl ar ant ’ s s t at ement des pi t e an or derof t he courtt o do s o; or (3) d em o n str a te s a la c k o f m em o ryo f th e su b ject m att er o f th e d ec laran t’ s s t at ement ; or (4) is un ab le to b e p rese n t or t o test ifyat t h e h ea ri n g b ec au se o f th e d ec laran t’ s d e a t h o rt h e n e x i s t i n g p h ys i c a l o rm e n t a l i l l n e s s o ri n f i r m i t y; ( 5) i s abs entfr om t he hea r i ng and the pr oponentof a st at ement has been unabl e t o pr ocur e t he dec l ar ant ’ s at t endanc e bypr oces s ; or

. . . . A decl ar ant i s not unavai l abl e as a w i t nes s i f exempt i on, r efus al , cl ai m of l ack of m emory , i nabi l i t y , orabs ence i s due t o t he pr ocur ement or w r ongdoi ng of t he p r o p o n e n t o f a s t a t e me n t f o r t h e p u rp o s e o f p r e v e n t i n g t h e wi t n e s s fr om a tte n d in g o r t e s tif

y in g . T e n n . R . E v id . 8 0 4 (a ). “F orm er t est i m on y ” i s defi ned as: T es t i m onygi ven as a w it n es s atanotherhear i ng of t he s ame or a di ffe r ent pr ocee di ng ori n a depos i t i on t aken i n compl i ance w i t h l aw i n t he cour s e of the s ame or anotherpr ocee di ng, i f t he part yagai ns tw hom t he t est im o nyi s now offe r ed had both an oppor tuni t yand a si m i l arm ot i ve t o devel op t he t es t i m ony bydi r ect , cr os s , orr edi r ectexami nat i on. Id

. For m ert es t i m onyadmi t t ed underR ul e 804( b) ( 1) i s s ubs t ant i ve evi dence

. St at e v. St acey P hi l anderB aldon , No

. W 2 0 0 0

- 0 0 5 2 4

- CCA- R3

- CD, 2 0 0 1 W L 1 2 8 5 8 6 , a t* 5 ( Te n n . Cr i m. A p p ., a t J a c k s o n , F e b . 1 2 , 2 0 0 1 ), per m . app. deni ed ( T enn. J une 4, 2001)

. I ti s w el l

- s et t l ed th a t th e “ in v o c a tio n o f

th e p ri v ile g e a g a in s t s e lf -i n c ri m ination ren d ers a w itn ess u n a v a ila b le .” S ta te v . H

o w e ll , 868 S. W

. 2d 238, 250 ( T enn. 1993) ( ci t i ng St at e v. A r m es , 607 S. W

. 2d 234, 2 3 7 (T e n n . 1 9 8 0 ))

.-8-

T he S t at e ci t es H

ar r is o n v. Un it ed St at es , 3 9 2 U .S . 2 1 9 (1 9 6 8 ), to su p p o rt th e ir ar gum entt hat A ppel l ant ’ s t es t i m onyfr om hi s fi r s tt r i al i s admi s s i bl e her ei n. I n H ar r is on , t he def endantw as or i gi nal l yt r i ed on a c har ge o f fe lon y m ur der

. A thi s fi r s tt r i al , t he pr os ecuti o n intr oduced thr ee c onfes s i ons al l egedl ym ade bydefe ndantw hi l e i n pol i ce cus t ody

. A ft ert he admi s s i on of t hes e conf es s i ons , t he def

endantt ook t he s t and and t es t i fi ed t o hi s ow n ver s i on of t he events. T h e juryfound t he def endantgui l t y . O n appea l , t he convi ct i on w as r ever s ed w hen the courtdet er m i ned thatt he conf es s i ons admi t t ed att r i al had b ee n il lega ll y o b tai n ed

. I d. a t 2 2 0 . A t a s e c o n d trial, th e p ro se c u tio n d id n o t ad m it defe ndant ’ s confe s s i ons i nt o evi dence , butdi d r ead i nt o evi dence t he def endant ’ s t es t i m ony fr om hi s fi r s tt r i al

. T he def endant w as convi ct ed agai n and the convi ct i on w as aff i r m ed on a p p e a l. I d. at221. O n appea l t o t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t , t he C our thad t o deci de w hethert he t es t i m onyfr om t he def endant ’ s fi r s tt r i al w as pr oper l yadmi t t ed aga i ns tt he defe ndantathi s s econd tr i al

. T h e C our tnot ed thati tdi d not“ques t i on t he gene r al evi dent i aryrul e thata def enda n t’ s test i m onyata form ert r i al i s admi s s i bl e i n evi dence agai ns thi m i n l at erpr ocee di ngs . ” Id

. at222. I n s o doi ng, t he C our texpl ai ned, [a ] de fe n d an t w h o ch o o ses to test ifyw aive s h is privil eg e a g ains t com p u lsory s el f- i ncr i m i nat i on w i t h r es pectt o t he t es t i m onyhe gi ves , and that w ai veri s no les s e f f e c tiv e o r co m p lete b e c a u se th e d e f e n d a n t m a y h a v e b e e n m o tiv a ted to t ake t h e w it n ess s t and i n t he fi r s tpl ace onl ybyr eas on of t he s t r ength of t he l a wf u l e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d a g a i n s th i m. I d. T he C our tt hen ca r ved outa narr ow exce pt i on t o t he gene r al rul e, not i ng: H e re , h o w e v e r, th e p e tit io n e r tes tifie d o n lya f ter th e G o v e rn m e n t h a d ill e g a lly i nt r oduced i nt o ev i dence t hr ee c onfes s i ons , al l w r ongful l yobt ai ned, and the sa m e p rin c ip le th a t p ro h ib its th e u se o f c o n f e ss io n s s o p ro c u re d a lso p ro h ib its th e u se o f

a n ytes tim o n yim p e lled th e re b y -th e f ru it o f th e p o is o n o u s tre e , to in v o k e a tim e -w o rn m e ta p h o r . . . . I d. B eca us e t he conf es s i ons had bee n i l l egal l yobt ai ned, t he C our tdet er m ined t hatt he r e l e v a n tq u e s t i o n w a s n o l o n g e r w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t m a d e a k n o w i n g d e c i s i o n t o t e s t i f y, b u t r a th e r f

o c u s e d o n th e m o tiv a tio n f o r t h e d e f

e n d a n t’ s te s tim o n y . I

d. at 22 3

. T h e C o u rt h e ld th a t, if th e d e f

e n d a n t tes tifie d “ in o rd e r t o o v e rc o m e th e im p a c t o f c o n f e ss io n s illeg a lly o b t a i n e d a n d h e n c e i mp r o p e r l yi nt r od uc e d , th e n h i s t e s t i mo n ywa s t a i n t e d b yt h e s a me i l l egal i ty that rende r ed t he conf es s i ons t hemsel ves i nadmi s s i bl e. ” I d. A ft ers t at i ng t he gener al rul e, t he C our tdet er m i ned thatt he G ov ern m en t f ai l ed t o demonst r at e thatt he defe ndant ’ s deci s i on t o t es t i fyathi s fi r s tt r i al w as notm ot i vat ed byt he i nt r oduct i on of t he-9-

ille g a lly o b ta in e d c o n f

e s s io n s a n d , th e re f

o re , re v e rs e d th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s c o n v ic tio n . I

d. at 224- 226. T ennes s ee ha s ci t ed H ar r is on w ith a p p ro v a l in s e v e ra l c a s e s . See e

. g. , St at e v. V al ent i ne , 8112 S. W

. 2d 328, 332- 33 ( T enn. 1995) ( appl y i ng H ar r is on t o pr eventw ai verof re v iew o f

se a rc h a n d se izu re iss u e s w h e n th e d e f e n d a n t tes tifie s a t trial); St at e v. C az es , 875 S

. W

. 2 d 2 5 3 , 2 6 6 (T en n . 1 9 9 4 ) (n o ting that p er H ar r is on , “[ a ] d e f

e n d a n t w h o c h o o se s to t es t i fyw ai ves hi s pr i vi l ege a gai ns tcompul s or ys el f-i ncr i m i nat i on w i t h r es pectt o t he test im o n yh e g ives

. ”). In th e c a se h e re in , A p p e llan t tes tifie d a t th e f irst tria l. T h a t trial re su lted in a m istria l. D u ri n g the s ec o n d tr ial , the S tat e a tte m p ted to ca ll A p p ell an t as a w itn ess. T h e tri al co u rt q u e stio n e d A p p e llan t, w h o m a d e th e d e c isio n n o t to tes tify in th e se c o n d trial. A s a re su lt, th e trial c o u rt d e c lar e d A p p e llan t u n a v a ilab le a s a w itn e ss . T h e S tate w a s th e n p e rm itt e d to in tro d u c e A p p e llan t’s te stim o n yf ro m th e f irst trial u n d e r th e f

o rm e r te stim o n ye x c e p tio n to th e h e ars ayrul e. T he tes t i m on yw as r ead int o the r ecord i n fron tof the j uryand cert a in p o r t i o n s wer e r e d a c t e d

. At t h e f i r s tt r i a l , u n l i k e t h e d e f e n d a n ti n Ha rris on , A ppel l ant test ifi ed o f h is ow n fre e w il l, n o t t o ex p lai n il lega ll yo b tai n e d incrim inating ev iden ce . In f a c t , Ap p e l l a n t t e s t i f

i e d t h a th e h a d n o r o l e i n t h e mu r d e ro f t h e v i c t i m a n d h a d n o tt h r o wn aw ayany ev idence of t he cr i m e. I n t he ca s e her ei n, t he tr i al cour tnot ed thatA ppel l ant t es t i fi ed fr eel yat t he fi r s t t r i al

. W e agr ee w i t h t he St at e t hat t he t r i al cour tpr oper l yadmi t t ed the pr i ort es t i m ony . T he St at e compl i ed w i t h t he r equi r ement s of Tennes s ee Rul e of E v id e n c e 8 0 4 to sh o w th a t A p p e llan t w a s u n a v a ilab le a n d p ro p e rly m o v e d to in tro d u c e h is for m ert es t i m ony . A ppel l ant ’ s for m ert es t i m onyw as pr oper l yadmi t t ed.

I ntr oduct i on of

M ySpace P age as I

m peachm ent

E vi dence A ppel l antnextcompl ai ns on appea l aboutt he tr i al cour t ’ s deci s i on t o excl ude t he i nt r oduct i on of M r . M cG ee’ s M y Space i nt ernet page dur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on. A ppel l ant f iled a m o tio n p rio r t o trial t o a llo w th e in tro d u c tio n o f a p ictu re o f M r. M c G e e f r o m h is M y Space page t hat cont ai ned a pi ctur e of M r . M cG ee w i t h t he ca pt i on “arm ed and da nger ous

. . . I re p e a t ar m e d a n d d a n g e ro u s.” C o u n se l f o r A p p e llan t so u g h t to u se th e in f o rm a tio n in a n a ttem p t to im p e a c h th e c re d ib ili tyo f M r. M c G e e . O n a p p e a l, A p p e lla n t sp e c if ica lly ar gues t hatt he t r i al cour t abus ed i t s di s cr et i on and the exc l us i on of t he evi dence amount ed t o “an unr eas onabl e r es t r i ct i on on A ppel l ant ’ s r i ght t o cr os s - exami ne” t he w i t nes s i n or der to sh o w h is la c k o f c re d ib ili ty . T h e S tate d isa g re e s, sta tin g th a t th e trial c o u rt p ro p e rly ut i l i zed Rul e 608( b) of t he Tennes s ee Rul es of E vi dence and det er m i ned t hat t he i nfor m at i on h a d n o p ro b a tiv e v a lu e a n d w o u ld o n ly se rv e to c o n f u s e th e ju ry. T e n n e ss e e R u le o f

E v id e n c e 6 0 8 (b ) a llo w s a p a r ty to a sk a w itn e ss a b o u t sp e c if ic i ns t ance s of conduc tt hat ar e proba t i ve of t he w i t nes s ’ s unt rut hful nes s i n or dert o at t ack the cr edi bi l i t yof t he w i t nes s . T he t r i al cour t m us t fi r s tdet er m i ne thatt he al l eged c onducthas-10-

p ro b a tiv e v a lu e a n d th a t th e re is a re a s o n a b le f a c tu a l b a s is f

o r t h e in q u ir y . See T enn. R

. E vi d. 608( b) ( 1)

. T he t r i al cour t m us t al s o det er m i ne t hat “the pr obat i ve val ue of t he evi dence , s u p p o rt e d b ys p e c if

ic f a c ts a n d c ir c u m sta n c e s , s u b s ta n tia lly o u tw e ig h s its p re ju d ic ia l e f

f e c t.” T enn. R

. E vi d. 608( b) ( 2)

. T he tri al cour t ’ s rul i ng w i l l onl ybe di s turbed upon a f i ndi ng of a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . S e e S ta te v . R o b e rts , 9 4 3 S

. W

. 2 d 4 0 3 , 4 0 8 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by Stat e v. R al ph , 6 S

. W

. 3 d 2 5 1 , 2 5 7 (T en n . 1 9 9 9 ). A tt r i al , dur i ng the cr os s - exami nat i on of M r . M cG ee, couns el forA ppel l antat t empt ed to en ter into ev iden ce a print o u t fro m M r. M cG ee ’s M y S p ac e w eb p ag e tha t sho w ed a p ictu re of M r . M cG ee w i t h t he capt i on “arm ed and da nger ous . ” C ouns el forA ppel l antar gued t hat t he ca pt i on i m peac hed M r . M cG ee’ s test i m onyi n w hi ch he c l ai m ed thathe w as afr ai d of A ppel l antw hen A ppel l antpoi nt ed a gun a t hi m . Fur t her , couns el forA ppel l antar gued t hat t he st at em ent i m peach ed M r. M cG ee’s veraci t yas a w i t ness becau se he adm i t t ed att he fir st trial th a t h e w a s n o t “a rm e d a n d d a n g e ro u s,” h e o n ly u se d th e sta tem e n t o n h is w e b p a g e to f u rth e r h is c a re e r a s a r a p a rtist. T h e trial c o u rt h a d ru led o n th e m a tter a t th e f irst tria l, deemi ng t he pi ctur e and capt i on i nadmi s s i bl e. T he t r i al cour t r evi ew ed i t s rul i ng fr om t he fi r s tt r i al and aga i n deemed t he mat t eri nadmi s s i bl e. T he tr i al cour tdet er m i ned thatt he p rob ati v e v alue o f th e e v iden ce d id n o t sub stan ti all y o u tw eigh it s p rejud ici al ef fe ct. F u rt h er, t he t r i al c o u r t d i d n o t “ b e l i e v e t h a t [ t ] h i s g o e s t o t h e wi tn e s s ’ c h a r a c t e r f o r t ru t h f u l n e s s or unt rut hful nes s . ” T he t r i al cour tconduct ed a j ur youthear i ng on the matt er an d d eter m i ned thatt he ev iden ce w as n o t ad m issi b le b ec au se it w as n o t p rob ati v e. W e d eterm ine th at t h e tri al co u rt foll ow ed the proper proced ure and did no t abu se i t s dis cret i on . T he st at em ents of a w i t ness on a per s onal w ebpage desi g n ed t o fur t hera musi cal car eerar e cl ear l yunr el at ed t o any par t i cul ari ns tanc e o f conductt hatw oul d s how t he w i t nes s ’ s char act erorr eput at i on for t rut hful nes s as a w i t nes s . T he tr i al cour t pr oper l y det er m i ned t hatt he evi dence w as i r r el evant and thati t s pr obat i ve val ue w as not out w ei ghed by t he ri s k of undue pr ej udi ce. T hi s i s s ue is w ith o u t m e rit. Suf f i ci ency of

the Evi dence A ppel l antar gues t hatt he evi de n c e i s i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor thi s convi ct i ons fors econd degr ee mur derand t amper i ng w i t h t he evi dence

. S p ec ifi cal l y , A ppel l antcl ai m s t hatt he t es t i m onyof M r . M cG ee a nd M r . Fut t r el l w as notcr edi bl e and thathe coul d notbe convi ct ed o f t a mp e r i n g wi t h e v i d e n c e b e c a u s e t h e r e wa s n o o f f i c i a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n p e n d i n g a tt h e t i me A p p e lla n t “ a lle g e d ly” t h re w ite m s o u t o f th e w in d o w o f

M r. M c G e e ’s c a r. W h e n a d e f

e n d a n t ch a llen g e s th e su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e , this C o u rt is o b lig e d to r evi ew t hatcl ai m acc or di ng t o cert ai n w el l

- s et t l ed pr i nci pl es . A ver di ctof gui l t y , r ender ed-11-

bya j ur yand “a ppr oved byt he tr i al j udge, acc r edi t s t he t es t i m onyof t he” St at e’ s w i t nes s es a n d re s o lv e s a ll c o n f

lic ts in th e te s tim o n yin f a v o r o f th e S ta te

. St at e v. C az es , 875 S. W

. 2d 2 5 3 , 2 5 9 (T e n n . 1 9 9 4 ); S ta te v . H a rr is , 839 S. W

. 2d 54, 75 ( T enn. 1992)

. T hus , al t hough t he a c c u se d is o rig in a llyc lo a k e d w ith a p re su m p tio n o f in n o c e n c e , the ju ryv e rd ict o f g u ilty r emoves t hi s pr es um pt i on “and r epl ace s i tw i t h one of gui l t

. ” S ta te v . T u g g le , 639 S. W

. 2d 9 1 3 , 9 1 4 (T e n n . 1 9 8 2 ). H e n c e , o n a p p e a l, th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f re sts w ith th e d e f

e n d a n t to d e m o n s tr a te th e in s u f

f ic i e n c yo f

th e c o n v ic tin g e v id e n c e . Id

. T he r el evantques t i on t he r evi ew i ng cour tm us tans w eri s w hetheranyr at i on al tr i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound t he a c c u s e d g u ilty o f

e v e ry e le m e n t o f

th e o f f e n s e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. See T enn. R

. A pp. P . 1 3 (e ); H

a rr is , 839 S. W

. 2d at75. I n m aki ng t hi s deci s i on, w e ar e t o acc or d t he St at e “the s t r onges t l egi t i m at e vi ew of t he evi dence as w el l as al l r eas onabl e and l egi t i m at e i nfer ence s t hatm aybe dr aw n t her efr om . ” S e e T u g g le , 6 3 9 S .W .2 d a t 9 1 4 . A s s u c h , this C o u r t is p rec l uded fr om r ew ei ghi ng orr eeva l uat i ng t he evi dence w hen cons i der i ng t he convi ct i ng p ro o f

. St at e v. Mor

gan , 9 2 9 S .W .2 d 3 8 0 , 3 8 3 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ); S t a t e v . Ma t th e ws , 8 0 5 S

. W. 2 d 7 7 6 , 7 7 9 ( T e n n . Cr i m. Ap p . 1 9 9 0 )

. M o r e o v e r , we ma y n o t s u b s t i tu t e o u ro wn “ i n f e r e n c e s f o rt h o s e d r a wn b yt h e t r i e ro f f a c tf r o m c i r c u ms t a n t i a l e v i dence

. ” M a t th e ws , 805 S. W

. 2d at779. F u rt h er, q u es t i ons conce r ni ng t he cr edi bi l i t yof t he w i t nes s es and t he w ei ghtand val ue t o be gi ven t o evi dence, as w el l as al l fac tual i s s ues r ai s ed bys uch e v id e n c e , are re so lv e d b y th e trier o f f a c t an d n o t th e a p p e llate c o u rts . S ta te v . P ru e tt , 788 S

. W

. 2 d 5 5 9 , 5 6 1 (T en n . 1 9 9 0 ). A c o n v ictio n f

o r se c o n d d e g re e m u rd e r re q u ire s p ro o f th a t th e d e f e n d a n t u n law f

u lly a n d k n o w in g lyk ill e d a n o th e r. T .C .A

. § § 3 9 -1 3 -2 0 1 , -2 1 0 (a ). A p e rso n a c ts k n o w in g lyw ith re sp e c t to a re su lt o f th e p e rso n ’s c o n d u c t w h e n th e p e rso n is a w a re th a t th e c o n d u c t is r eas onabl ycert ai n t o caus e t he r es ul t

. T

. C

. A

. § 39- 11- 302( b)

. I nt ent , w hi ch ca n s el dom be pr oven bydi r ectevi dence , m aybe deduc ed ori nferr ed byt he tr i erof fa ctfr om t he cha r act er of t he as s aul t , t he natur e of the ac tand fr om al l t he ci r cumst ance s of t h e ca se i n evi dence

. St at e v. I

nl ow , 5 2 S .W .3 d 1 0 1 , 1 0 4 -0 5 (T e n n . C rim

. A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); St at e v. H ol l and , 860 S. W

. 2d 53, 59 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1993)

. B ec ause s econd de gr ee mur deri s a “r es ul t

- ofc o n d u c t” o f

f e n se , a d e f

e n d a n t is gu ilty if h e “ a c ts i n ten tio n a lly , m e a n in g th a t h e a c ted w ith a cons ci ous obj ect i ve ordes i r e t o caus e the dea t h of t he al l eged vi ct i m . ” St at e v. P age , 81 S .W .3 d 7 8 1 , 7 8 7 -8 8 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). T he pr oof att r i al , i n a l i ght m os t favor abl e t o t he St at e, i ndi cat ed thatt he vi ct i m w as unar m ed att he t i m e he w as s hot m ul t i pl e t i m es . T her e w as t es t i m onyfr om M r . M cG ee that A ppel l a n tf

a i l e d t o r e n d e ra i d t o t h e v i c t i m e v e n a f t e rh e c l a i me d h e k n e w t h e v i c t i m w as s hot

. F u rt h er, t her e w as t es t i m onyand ce l l phone r ecor ds t hati ndi cat ed s om eone, pr es um abl e A ppel l ant, ca ll ed M r . Par ks fr om M r . M cG ee’ s cel l phone t o r epor tt hatt he vi ct i m had “t w o bul l et s i n hi m . ” M r . Fut t r el l al s o t es t i fi ed thatA ppel l antconfe s s ed t o t he m u rd e r o f

th e v ictim w h ile the tw o w e re in c a rc e ra ted in th e S h e lb yC o u n tyJa il. T h e ju ryis-12-

re s p o n s ib le f

o r a c c e s s in g th e c re d ib ility o f th e w itn e s s e s . P ru e tt , 788 S. W

. 2d at561. T he e v id e n c e w a s s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt a c o n v ic tio n f o r s e c o n d d e g re e m u rd e r. T he el ement s of t amper i ng w i t h evi dence ar e found a tT ennes s ee Code A n n ot at ed s ect i on 39- 16- 503. T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed s ect i on 39- 16- 503 s t at es , “( a) I ti s unl aw ful for any person, kn ow i ng t hat an i nv est i gati on or o ffi ci al proceed i ng i s pend i ng or i n p rogres s, to : ( 1 ) A lt e r, d e stro y , o r c o n c e a l an yre c o rd , d o c u m e n t o r th in g w ith in ten t to im p a ir its v e ri ty, le g ib ility, o r a v a ila b ility a s e v id e n c e in th e in v e s tig a tio n o r o f f ic ia l p ro c e e d in g . . . .” A tt r i al , t her e w as t es t i m ony t hatA ppel l antw as i n pos s es s i on of t he . 380 cal i berpi s t ol t h a tw a s u s e d t o s h o o tt h e v i c t i m, a n d t h a t p i s t o l w a s n e v e rr e c o v e r e d b yp o l i c e . We det er m i ne t hatt he evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o s us t ai n t he convi ct i on fort amper i ng w i t h t he e v id e n c e , i

. e. , th e p is to l u s e d to k ill th e v ic tim . T h is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. Sent enci ng A p p e l l a n tc o m p l a i n s t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u r ti m p o s e d a n e x c e s s i v e s e n t e n c e . S p e c i f i c a l l y, A p p e llan t co m p lain s th a t th e trial c o u rt im p ro p e rly a p p lied e n h a n c e m e n t f a c to rs to g iv e h im t he maxi m um pos s i bl e s ent ence fors econd de gr ee mur der

. A ppel l antdoes notcont entt hat th e re is n o e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e e n h a n c e m e n t f a c to rs , i

. e. , t hatA ppel l antw as on j udi ci al di ver s i o n a t t h e t i me o f t h e o f f e n s e , a g u n was u s e d i n t h e c o mmi s s i o n o f t h e o f f e ns e, and A ppel l anthas a hi s t or yof cr i m inal behavi or . A ppel l antes s ent i al l ycompl ai ns aboutt he w ei ghtas s i gned t o t he enha ncementfac t or s byt he tr i al j udge. “W hen re vi ew i ng s ent enci ng i s s ues . . . , t he appel l at e courts hal l conducta de novo r evi ew on t he r ecor d of t he i s s ues . T he r evi ew s hal l be conduc t ed w i t h a pr es um pt i on t hat th e d e te rm in a tio n s m a d e b yth e c o u rt f ro m w h ic h th e a p p e a l is ta k e n a re c o rr e c t.” T .C .A . § 4 0 -35 -40 1 (d). “H o w ev er, the pr es um pt i on of corr ectnes s w h ich a cc o m p an ies t h e tri al co u rt ’s ac ti o n is co n d it ion ed u p o n the a ff irm ati v e sh o w ing in the rec o rd th at t h e tri al co u rt cons i der ed the s ent enci ng pr i nciples and al l r el evantfac t s and ci r cumst ance s . ” St at e v. A s hby , 8 2 3 S

. W

. 2 d 1 6 6 , 1 6 9 (T en n . 1 9 9 1 ). W e are to a lso rec o g n ize tha t th e d ef en d an t bea rs “ th e b u rd e n o f

d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t th e s e n te n c e is im p ro p e r.” A s hby , 823 S. W

. 2d at169. I n m aki ng i t s s ent enci ng det er m i nat i on, a t r i al cour t , at t he concl us i on of t he se n ten c in g h e a rin g , firs t d e ter m in e s the ra n g e o f se n ten c e a n d th e n d e ter m in e s th e sp e c if ic s ent ence and the appr opr i at e combi nat i on of s ent enci ng al t ernat i ves by cons i der i ng: ( 1) t he e v id e n c e , if a n y , re c e iv e d a t th e trial a n d th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g ; (2 ) th e p re se n ten c e re p o rt; (3) the p ri n ciples o f se n tenc ing an d arg u m en ts as to se n ten c ing alt ern ati v es; (4) the n ature and cha r act er i s t i cs of t he cr i m i nal conduct i nvol ved; ( 5) evi dence and i nfor m at i on offe r ed byt he par t i es on t he enha ncementand mi t i gat i ng fac t or s ; ( 6) anys t at i s t i cal i nfor m at i on-13-

provided b yt he ad m i nis t rat i ve o ffi ce of t he co urt s r egardi ng sent ences fo r s i m i l ar offenses, ( 7) anys t at ement s t he def endantw i s hes t o m ake i n t he def endant ’ s behal f abouts ent enci ng; an d (8) the p o tential fo r reh ab il it ati o n o r t rea tm en t. T

. C

. A

. § § 4 0 -35 -2 1 0 (a ), (b), -10 3 (5); S t a t e v . Wi l l i a ms , 920 S. W

. 2d 247, 258 ( T enn. C ri m . A pp. 1995)

. W hen i m pos i ng t he se n ten c e w ith in th e a p p ro p ria te s e n ten c in g ra n g e f o r th e d e f

e n d a n t:
[T ]he co u rtsh a ll c o n side r, b u t i s n o t bo u n d b y , the f o ll o w ing ad v isory se n ten c in g g u id e lin e s: ( 1) T he mi ni m um s ent ence w i t hi n t he r ange of puni s hm ent i s t he s ent ence t hat s houl d be i m pos ed, beca us e the gene r al as s embl ys ett he mi ni m um l ength of s ent ence foreac h fel onycl as s t o r efl ectt he r el at ive ser i ous nes s of ea ch cr i m i nal offe ns e i n t he fe l onycl as s i fi cat i ons ; and ( 2) T he s ent ence l ength w i t hi n t he r ange s houl d be adj us t ed, as appr opr i at e, by t he pr es ence orabs en ce o f m i t i gat i ng and enha ncementfac t or s s etouti n §§ 40- 35- 113 and 40- 35- 114.

T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -2 1 0 (c ) ( 2 0 0 6 ). A t th e o u tse t w e n o te t h a t A p p e llan t co m m itt e d th e c rim in a l o f f e n se s a t issu e in O ct ober of 2006, t her efor e, t he 2005 amendm ent s t o t he s ent enci ng actappl yt o ourr evi ew of hi s s ent enci ng. T he 2005 amendm ent s t o t he s ent enci ng actm ade the appl i cat i on of t he e n h a n c e m e n t f

a c to rs a d v is o ry i n n a tu re . See T .C .A . § 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 4 ; St at e v. Jack i e Lynn G r ay , N o. M 2007- 02360- C C A

- R 3- C D , 2008 W L 2579175, at *5 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. , atN as hvi l l e, J u n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 8 ), per m . app. deni ed , (T en n . D ec . 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 ); S ta te v . T roy S o llis , N o. W 2007- 0 0 6 8 8 -C C A -R 3 -C D , 2 0 0 8 W L 1 9 3 1 6 8 8 , at *3 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . , at Jac k so n , M ay , 2 , 2 0 0 8 ). In f a c t, “[ T ]h e 2 0 0 5 a m e n d m e n ts [to th e se n ten c in g a c t] d e lete d a s g ro u n d f o r ap p e a l a c laim t hatt he tr i al cour tdi d notw ei gh pr oper l yt he enha ncementand m i t i gat i ng fac t or s . ” St at e v. C ar t er , 254 S. W

. 3d 335, 344 ( T enn. 2008)

. A ft era r evi ew o f the tr an s cr i ptfr om t he s ent enci ng hear i ng, i ti s cl ear t hat t he tr i al cour tcons i der ed the natur e and c har act er i s t i cs of the crimi nal conducti nvol ved, A ppel l ant ’ s hi s t or yand bac kgr ound, t he mi t i gat i ng and e n h a n c e m e n t f

a c to rs , a n d th e p ri n c ip le s o f s e n te n c in g . S e e id

. at 3 4 5 -4 6

. T h e re co rd s uppor t s t he exi s t ence of ea ch appl i ed enha ncementfac t or . T he tr i al cour t ’ s i m pos i t i on of a tw enty - fi ve y ears ent ence fort he fe l ony of sec ond degr ee m ur der i s aff i r m ed. T hi s i s s ue is w ith o u t m e rit.-14- C oncl us i on For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , t he j udgm entof t he tr i al cour ti s aff i r m ed.

___________________________________ J E RR Y L

. S M I T H, J UDGE