### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d onBr ie fs S ep te m be r 9, 200 3

ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E V

. A R TH U R BU F OR D , III

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 01-04246-47 W. Ot is Higgs, Jr., Jud ge

No. W2002-02258-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled March 1, 2004

The a ppellant, Arthur Buf

ord I I I
, was convicted by a jury of t wo counts of first deg ree murder. A fter being sentenc ed to t wo consecutive l ife sentences, the appellant presents t he following i ssues for our

re vie w: (1 ) whe the r t

he tr ia l c ourt a

bu se d its dis c re tio n by a llo wi ng the int ro du c tio n o f p ho togra

ph ic evidenc e of the crime sc ene; ( 2) whe ther the e v i d en ce is sufficient to sustain the convictions; and (3) whe ther the trial court properly sentenc ed the a

ppellant. Findingno reve rsible er ror, we aff

irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt s o f the Tr ialCo ur t a r e Affir m e d.

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opi n ion of the cour t, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and J OE G. R I L EY , J ., joined.

R o s s A

. S a mp s o n , M e mp h i s , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e a p p e l l an t , A rt h u r

B u r f o r d
, III

.

Pau l G

. Summ e r s , A tt o r

n e y G e n e r a l & Re p o rte r ; H e le n a Wa lt o nY ar

b r o u g h
, A s s is ta

n t A ttorney Gene ral; Will iam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; Jer ry

Kitchen a

nd Be tsy Carnesa le, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

Fa ctual B ackground

Th e a pp e lla nt w or ke d at a c ar w a shin Me mph is wit h both Ce dr ic Mo e ri ng s and

Ty le r Jon e s. The a ppellant’s lifelongfriend, O marr H urd, worke d at a l o cal hotel. On J anuar y 8, 2000, Omarr Hurd re serve d a room at the hotel for the appellant’ s mother for the night. The a ppellant’s sister a

nd her bo y fr i en d
, J ustin McNeil, came to the hotel at some point to “hangout” with the appe llant’s mother and w atch tele vision.-2-

Whe n Om a

rr Hurd g ot of

f wo rk that night a t aro un d 11 :00 p. m., his g ir lf ri e nd pi cked him up and took him home. He chang ed clothes before the appe llant picked him up in his mot her’ s car

. The appellant’ s mother called and asked him to pick up his sist er a nd her boy friend at the hotel and
take the m ho me . T he a

pp e lla nt a nd Om arr Hurd pic ke d u p th e a pp e lla nt’ s si ste r a

nd Justi n M c Ne il at the hotel. Instead of ta

king them home, howeve r, the appellant stopped at Cedric Moe ring s’s and Tyle r Jon e s’ s a

pa rtme nt. On

the wa y to t he a pa rtme nt, the a

pp e lla nt a sk e d if

anyon e ha d a

ny g lov e s. The a ppellant pulled the ca

r ar ound to the back of t he apartment, backed int o a par king spa ce, a

nd pr od uc e d a g un . O marr

Hurd ha d g ive n th e g un

to t he a pp e lla nt o n N e w Y e a

r’s Ev e to re tur

n to Cedric Moering s. Omarr Hurd had borrowe d the gun from Cedric Moering s sever al months earlier

a ft e r s ome on e a tte mpt e d to ro b h is g ir lf ri e nd

. Om arr Hurd a sk e d th e a pp e lla nt t o r e tur n th e g un to Ce dr ic Mo e ri ng s b e c a

us e , a bo ut a we e k a nd a ha lf pr ior to Janu ary

8, 20 00 , O marr

Hurd and Ce dr ic Moering s g ot into an argument about a young woman name d Br andy . Evidently , Omarr Hurd g ave Br an dy h i s p h o n e nu mb er

ev en t h o u ghC ed ri c M o e r i n gs wa s t ry i n g t o d at e h er

. C ed ri c M o er i n gs told Bra ndy sever al things a

bout Omarr H urd that we re not tr ue, and, whe n confr onted about what he told Br andy , Cedric Moe ring s and Omar r Hurd g ot into a verba l alterc ation.

When the appellant pr oduced the g un, he turne d around to his sister and J ustin McNe il in the ba c ks e a t of

the ve hic le , c oc ke d th e g un , an d sai d in a jokin g mann e r, “ I f y ’a ll tel l any bo dy Ic a me

ov e r h e re , I

wi ll k ill y ’a ll. ” Th e a

pp e lla nt le ft the c ar. Om arr Hurd , the a pp e lla nt’ s siste r, and

Justi n McNeil sat

in t he c ar f or fi ve to t e n mi nute s li ste nin g to t he ra dio . T he n th e a

pp e lla nt r e tur ne d to the ca r an d wa s s h ak i n g so badly that he could ha

rdly start the ca

r. He place d the g un in Omarr Hurd ’s la p a nd state d, “ Yo u n e e d to g e t th a t awa y fr om me .” Om arr

Hurd the n a sk e d h owCe dr ic Mo e r i n g s w a s d o i n g , b u t t h e a p p e l l an t d i d n o t r e s p o n d

. H e l a t e r c o m m e n t e d t h a t “ I w a s t h e la st thing [Tyler Jones] saw be fore Ishot him.” The appe llant drove the c ar to his mother’s house wher e

ever y one we nt inside.

Th e a pp e lla nt t he n to ok Om arr Hur d home . O nc e the re , O marr Hurd g a ve the a

pp e lla nt a box of bullets and tol d him to “g et t hose out of m y house .

. . I don’t have a ny thing to do with this.” The a ppellant took the bullets, put them i n the g arba g e and took the g arba g e out to the dumpster. The a ppellant then lef

t Omarr H urd’s house f

or about twe nty -five min u t es . When the appellant returne d, he stay ed with Omar r Hurd until the two wer e arr ested by the police on January

11, 2000.

Duringt h e af

ternoon of January

9, 2000, Offic er A shley Moore of

the Memphis Police Depa rtment visited the apar

tment of Cedric Moering s and Tyler J ones at 5444 Mea dowlake D rive in Memphis in response to an an o n y m o us telephone c all. After arr iving at the apar

tment, Office r Moore knoc ked on the door but re ceive d no response . He a lso knocked on a window and r ece ived

no response

. At that time, Office r Moore peer ed throug h the window, sawthe television was on, a nd could see that someone wa s ly ing on the couch. Be cause the scre en wa s not on the window, Off icer Moore r aised the w indow and peer ed inside the apa rtment. He sa

w two individuals inside, realized that something w as wrong , closed the w indow, and ca lled for a n ambulance

.

Once the paramedics arrived, they enter ed the a partment throug h the window with Off icer Moore whe re the y

discovere d the two victims. One victim was lying on the couch w ith a larg e injury-3-

to the head. The other vic tim was sitti ng in a re cliner, wrappe d in a comfor ter, with a la

rg e injury to t h e hea d. Both victims appea red to be dead. O ffice r Moore perf ormed a quick sea

rch of the apar tment to secure the ar ea be fore climbing ba ck out of the wi n d o w. The victims were late r identified as Cedr ic Moering s and Tyler Jones.

When the appellant wa s arr ested on January 11, 2000, he g ave se vera l differ ent ver sions of the eve nts of the eve ning of J anuar y 8, 200 0
, t o the police. Only afte r beingconfr onted with the other witnesse s’ ver sions of wh at h ap p en ed that nig ht did the defe ndant ultimately admit to the shootings. The appellant’ s statement indicates that he drove to Cedric Moerings’ s and Tyler Jones’s apar tme n t an d exit ed the ve hicle while his sister, Omar r Hurd, a nd J ustin McNeil waited in the

ve hic le . A c c or din g to t

he a pp e lla nt, Om arr Hurd did no t give him

the g un to r e tur n to Ce dr ic Moering s until t hat nig ht.

Th e a pp e lla nt i nd ic a te d th a t on c e he arr ive d at the a pa rtme nt a nd kn oc ke d o n th e do or , Ce dr ic Moering s answer ed the door. The a ppellant aske d Cedric Moe ring s if he knew wher e he c ould ge t

so me “ we e d, ” Ce dr ic Mo eri ngs replie d, “ No ,” and the n w e nt t o th e bathr oo m. Wh e n Ce dr ic Moering s returne d from the bathroom, the appe llant ga ve him the gun. The appellant stated that at that time, Cedric Moering s took the g un, pointed it at him, and started ve rbally assaulting him. The appellant testified that he was scar ed that Cedric Moering s was g oing to kill him, so he rea ched f or th e g u n

. T h e t w o s t art e d tu s s l i n g an d t h e a p p e l l an t m an a g e d t o t w i s t t h e g u n ou t of Ce dr ic Moering s’s hand a

nd shoot the g un sever al times. The appe llant claimed he shut his ey es when he shot the g un, and that he shot Cedr ic Moering s near the front door

of the a partment. The appellant stated that, at that time, Tyler Jones jumped up from the couc h and ru s h ed t owar d him. The

a pp e lla nt a g a in c los e d h is e y e s an d f ir e d th e g un

se ve ra l ti me s. Af

te r t he a pp e lla nt s ho t Ce dr ic Moering s and Tyler Jones, he ran ba ck to the vehic le.

The appellant was indicted by the Shelby County Gra nd J ury on two counts of first de g ree murder f or the de aths of Cedric Moering s and Tyler Jones.

D r

. O ’ B r i e nC

. S m i t h
, a

f o r e n s i c p a t h o l o g i s tan d

M e d i c a l E x a m i n e r

f o r S h e l b y C o u n t y, perf ormed the a

utopsies on both vic tims and te stified at trial. He deter mined that Tyler Jones, the vic timfo un d ly

ingon the c ou c h, wa s sh ot at clo se ra ng e , with in two fe e t, t

wi c e in t he c e nte r o f h is fo re he a d. Th e tw o gun sh ot w ound s w e re thr e e -f ourths of an in c h a

pa rt . D r. Smit

h w a s a ble to deter mine the ra

ng e of the shots due to the prese nce of powder burns on Tyler Jones’s fore head. O ne bullet entere d the ce nter of his for ehea d, went throug h the s calp, bone, sinuses, and bec ame lodg ed in the roof of

h is mo u th

w h e r e th e b u ll e t w a s r e c o v e r e d

. T h e s e c o n d b u ll e t s tr

u c k th e u pper fore head, w ent throug h the sca lp and skull, producing skull fr actur es and damag e to the rig ht frontal lobe of the br ain. The se cond bullet was r ecove red in Ty ler Jones’s skull. Dr. S mith opined that the

cause of Tyler Jones’s death wa s multi ple g unshot wounds to the head.

Cedric Moe ring s, the victim found in the rec liner cha ir, was a lso shot twice in the head. T he g unshot wounds were located on the rig ht side of his head a bo v e t he ea

r and w ere eig hty -five hund re dth s o f a

n inc h ap art

. B oth sh ots we re fr om a dis tanc e of mor e tha n two fe e t and bo th b ull e ts-4-

trave led to the bac k o f C edric Moering s’s skull on the left side wher e the bullets we re r ecove red. Both of the victims were killed with a .38 c aliber a utomatic g un.

Pa ule tte Sutton , A ssi sta

nt D ir e c tor

of F or e ns ic Sc ie nc e a t th e Re g ion a l F or e ns ic Ce nte r, is an expert blood serolog ist who has analy zed body fluids and blood stain patterns for twenty -five
y ear s. At trial
, s h e t es t i fi ed that whe n a body is shot, blood i s expelled from the body instantaneously , befor e the body is able to fa l l o r m o v e. She was a ble to deter

mine from photogr aphs, diag rams of the crime sc ene, a utopsy files, statements, and othe r in f o r ma ti o n , th a t T y ler Jone s, wh o w a s f

ound on the c ou c h, wa s fo un d in e sse nti a lly the same po sit ion a s wh e n he wa s sh ot. H e r o p i n i o nw a s b a s e d

o n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e w e r e n o b l o o d s t a i n s o n t h e p i l l o w s ar o u n d t h e b o dy, on the sofa, or

on Tyler J ones’s pa

nts or socks. Ther e wa s also not any blood on the floor or the

near by coff ee table. Ms. Sutton conclude d that it wa s impossibl e for Tyler J ones to be in a n uprig ht po sit ion or e ve n s itt ingup on

the c ou c h w he n h e wa s sh ot.

As to Cedric Moer ings, w ho was found sitting in a re cliner c hair with a c omforter wra pped around him, Ms. Sutton si milarly conclude d that he was also found in the same position as when he was shot and killed. Ms. Sutton based her c onclusion on the fac t that the re wer e no blood stains on the c omf or te r wra pp e d aro un d Mo e ri ng s, on the fr on t of his sh ir t, o r t he fl oo r b e ne a th h im. Ce dr ic Moering s’s blood was conf ined to the rig ht side of his head.

Ms. Sutton ultimately

conclude d that it would have bee n impossibl e for either vic tim to be in a standing
, sitti ng , attempting to sit, attempting to sta nd, or any position ot her tha n the position they wer e in when f

ound.

At the c on c lus ion

of the e vid e nc e , th e jur

y c on vic te d th e de fe nd ant o f t wo c ou nt s of f

ir st deg ree murder. A s a re sult, he was sente nced to two c onsecutive l i fe s en t en ces. O n appea l, he challen g e s th e s u f

f ic ie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e , th e intr o d

u c ti o ninto e v id e n c e o f

c e rta in c r im e s c ene photogr aphs, and the imposit ion of two consec utive life sentenc es.

I ntroduction of Crime Scene Photogra phs

The a ppellant complains on appe al that the trial c ourt abus ed i t s discretion by admitting crime sc ene photog raphs. Sp e c if ic ally , the appe llant contends that the trial c ourt should have g rante d his moti on in limi ne to exclude ce rtain photog raphs a s unduly prejudicia l and cumulative. He a rg ues that the photog raphs showing“one of the men’s br ains coming ou t o f h is nose” as w ell as the “pho to g r a p h s s h o w in g th e lo c a ti o n o f th e b u ll e t w o u n d s ” w e r e c u mu lati v e , p r e ju d ic ia l, a nd

unnece ssary

to rebut the a

ppellant’s theor

y of self- defe nse or show preme ditation on his par t. The State counter s that the appe llant has waive d this iss ue o n ap p eal f or fa iling to identify

which photogr aphs should have be en excluded. The State points out that the appellant’ s brief, motion for new tria l, and amende d motion for new tria l do not identify which phot o gra p h s s hould have be enT he m o t i o n in l i m i ne i t sel f is no t a p art o f

the reco rd. T here i s a b ri ef exchange at t he b egi nni ng of t ri al where 1

t he appel l ant ’ s coun s el s t at es t hat “a l l o f t hem [t he phot ogr aphs ] are j us t way t oo pre j udi ci al t o s how t he j ur y

. ” La t er

o n in t he d i scus si o n, the ap p el l ant ’ s co unsel and t he t ri al co urt m ake ref erences t o “ t hi s o ne ri ght here” and “t hi s. ” T he
t r i al co urt d ec i d ed to addres s t he adm i s s i bi l i t y of ea ch phot ogr aph pr i or t o i t s admi s s i on. D ur i ng t r i al
, wh en s eve r al

un s peci f i ed phot ogr aphs wer e about t o be i nt r od uce d, appel l ant ’ s couns el ob j ect ed. T he t r i al cour t conduc t ed a s i de bar

w he re the c o urt ad m i t t ed ce rtai n p ho t o gra p hs an d refused o t he rs. T he t rial co urt stated tha t it w as “go i ng t o all o w t he se b u t no t t h o se .” T h u s, fr o m t h e re c o rd , w e a re un a b le to a sc e rta in in p a rtic u la r w h ic h p h o to g ra p h s the a p p e llan t i s chal l engi ng on ap p eal

. “ W hen a p art y s eeks app el l at e revi ew t here i s a d ut y t o p repa re a reco rd whi ch co nveys a f ai r, accurat e and co m p l et e acco unt o f what t rans p i red wi t h res p ect t o t he i ss ues f o rming t he b asi s o f

t he ap p eal

. ” St at e v. B al l ard, 85 5 S.W

. 2 d 55 7
, 56 0 (T enn. 19 9 3 ). O rdinar i l y , t he f ai l ure of t he ap p ell ant t o s ecure an ad eq uat e reco rd
pr ec l u des ou r c on s i der at i on of ma t t er s n ot c on t ai n ed i n t h e r ec or d. Se e T en n

. R. App. P. 24( b) ; St at e v

. T r ou t man , 979 S.W

. 2 d 27 1
, 27 4 (T enn. 19 9 8 ). N evert hel ess , due t o t he severi t y of t hese o f f enses , we wi l l ad d res s t he ap p el l ant ’ s i ss ue

o n the m e rits.

-5- e xclu de d. I n th e a lte rn a tiv e , the S tat e argue s th a t th e c ri me sc e ne ph oto g ra ph s w e re no t un du ly 1 prejudicia l or overly

cumulative.

As we be g in our ana ly sis, we note we ll-established p r e c e d e nt p r o v id in g “ that trial courts have broad discr etion in de termining the admissibili ty of evidenc e, and their ruling s will not be rever sed absent a n abuse of that discretion.” State v. Mc L eod, 937 S.W .2d 867, 871 (Tenn. 1996) . Moreove r, the Tenne ssee Rules of Evide nce e mbody , and our c ourts traditionally have a cknowledg ed, “a

policy of libera lity

in the admission of evidenc e in both civil and cr iminal cases.” State v. Ba nks, 564 S.W .2d 947, 949 (Tenn. 1978) ; State v. Robinson, 930 S.W .2d 78, 84 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) . To be admissible, evidenc e must satisfy the th re s h o ld determination of r eleva ncy mandated by Tenne ssee Rule of E vidence 401. See, e.g ., Ba nks, 564 S.W .2d at 949. Rule 401 defines “ rele vant evidenc e” as being “evide nce having any tendenc y to make the exis tence of any fac t t h at i s of conseque nce to the deter

mination of the action more probable or less probable t h an i t wo u l d be wi tho ut t he e vid e nc e .” Te nn . R. Ev id. 40 1. Ho we ve r, re le va nt “ e vid e nc e may

be e xclu de d if

its probative va lue is substantially outweig hed by

. . . the dange r of unfair prejudice .” Te nn. R. Evid. 403; see a lso Banks, 564 S.W.2d at 951.

Gr a ph ic , g ru e so me , or ev e n h or ri fy ingph oto g ra

ph s o f c ri me vic tim s ma

y be a dmi tte d into

e vid e nc e if the y are re le va nt t o s ome iss ue s at tr ia l and the ir pr e jud ic ia l e ff

e c t is outw e ig he d b y

the ir pr ob ity . B ank s, 56 4 S. W.2 d at 94 9- 51 . O n th e oth e r h and , “ if the y are no t r e le va

nt t o p ro ve so me part of the prosec ution’s case , they may not be admitt ed sol ely to inflame the jury and prejudice them ag ainst the defe ndant.” B anks, 564 S.W.2d at 9 51 (citing Milam v. Comm onwea lth, 275 S.W .2d 921 (Ky . 1955)). The decision as to whether such photog raphs should be a dmitted is one entrusted to the trial court, a

nd that decision wil l not be reve rsed on a ppeal a bsent a showingof abuse of discretion. I d. at 949; State v. Dicker son, 885 S.W .2d 90, 92 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)

.

I n the ca se her ein, the trial judg e conduc ted a jury -out hear ing on the motion in l imine filed by the a pp e lla nt p ri or to o pe nin g state me nts and pr ior to the a dmi ssi on

of the c on te ste d p ho togra

ph s. Up o nr e v ie w in g th e p h o to g r a p h s , th e tr ia l c o u rt w e igh e d th e p r e ju d ic ia l e f

f e c t o f th e in tr oduction of the photog raphs with the pr obative value and made a dete rmination that the photog raphs we re admissible.-6-

The re cord c ontains photogr aphs of the vic tims l y i n g o n t h e couch a nd rec liner as we ll as the a uto ps y ph oto g ra

ph s wh ic h a ll g ra

ph ic a lly de mon str a te the loc a tio n a nd natur e of the vic tim s’

wo un ds

. Th e ph oto g ra

ph s we re us e d a t tr ia l duri ng te sti mony of the po lic e of

fi c e r who wa s th e fi rs t on the sce ne, the medic al examiner who pe rfor med th e autops ies, and the blood ser ologist. The police off icer testified as to th e n at u re of the sce ne upon his arr ival, including the location of the bodies and the nature of the wounds that the victims sustained. See State v. Stephenson, 878 S.W .2d 530, 542 (Tenn. 1994) (statingthat trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted a photogr aph o f a corpse to illustrate the testimony of a police detec tive). The Me dical Examiner utiliz ed au t o psy

photogr aphs to illustrate the location and nature of the wounds sustained by the victims. S ee State v. Smith, 868 S.W .2d 561, 576 (Ten n

. 1993) (holding that trial court did not

a bu se its dis c re tio n in

a llo wi nga

uto ps y ph oto g ra phof vic timduri ngg uil t p has e of tr ial in p art to illust rate Medica l Ex aminer’ s testimony). The blood se rolog ist uti liz ed the photog raphs f rom the

scene and fr om the autopsy to make conc lusions re g arding the location of the victims at the time they

wer e shot. Her

testimony

was introduce d to rebut the a ppellant’s theor

y of self- defe nse.

We determine that the pi cture s were cer tainly rele vant to counter

the appe llant’s contention that he shot the victims in self-def ense with his ey es closed a fter a “tussle” f or the gun. The picture s ind ic a te a vio le nt atta c k w he re e a c h of the vic tim s wa s shot tw ic e in the he a d. Th e y sh owthe c los e proxi mity of the gunshot wounds as well as t he location of t he victim s’ bodi es. We have vie wed the photogr aphs and c onclude that while the y wer e ce rtainly

unp l ea s an t , the probative value of the ph oto g ra ph s w a s n ot s ub sta

nti a lly ou tw e ig he d b y dan ge r o f u nf a ir pr e jud ic e . U nd e r t

he se

c ir c ums tanc e s w e c ann ot s ay the tr ia l ju dg e a

bu se d his dis c re tio n in a dmi tti ngthe se pic tur e s. Th is iss ue do e s n ot m e ri t r e ve rs a l.

Sufficienc y of the Evidenc e

When a def

endant c halleng es the sufficiency of t he evidence, this Court is obliged to r eview that claim ac cordingto cer tain well-s et t l ed principles. A ve rdict of guilty , rende red by a jury and

“ app r o v e d b y t h e t r i a l j u d g e , a c c r e d i t s t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e ” S t a t e ’ s w i t n e s s e s an d r e so lve s a ll conflicts in the testimony

in f avor of the State. State v. Cazes, 875 S.W .2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994) ; State v. Har

ris, 839 S.W .2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992) . Thus, althoug h the ac cused is orig inally cloake d with a pre sumption of innocence , the j ury verdic t of guilty remove s this presumption “and re place s it with one of g uilt.” Sta t e v

. T u gg le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). He nce, on a ppeal, the burden of proof r ests with the defe ndant to demonstrate the insufficie ncy of the c onvicting e vidence

. I d. Th e re le va

nt q ue sti on the re vie wi ngc ourt

mus t ans we r i s w he the r a ny ra tio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld have f ound the acc used g uilty of ever y element of the offe nse beyond a rea sonable doubt. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e ); Har

ris, 839 S.W .2d at 75. In making this decision, we ar e to ac cord the State “the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence as well as a ll reasona ble and leg itimate infere nces that may be dra wn there from.” See Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d at 914. As such, this C ourt is pr ec l u ded fr om reweig hing or rec onsidering the evidenc e when evaluating the convictingproof. State v. Morg an, 929 S.W. 2d 38 0, 38 3 (T e nn . Crim . App . 199 6) ; Stat e v. Matth e ws , 805 S.W. 2d 77 6, 77 9 (T e nn . Cr im. App. 1990). More over, w e may not substit ute our own “ infere nces f or those drawn by the trier of fac t from circ umstantial evidence .” Matthew s, 805 S.W .2d at 779.-7-

I n the ca se her ein, the appe llant was charg ed with two counts of first deg ree murder a nd the jury returne d a ver dict finding the appellant g uilty on both counts. The appe llant argues on appe al that the evidenc e pre sented at trial did not establish that he acte d with premeditation. F urther, the appellant a

rgues that the testimon y o f Om arr Hurd a nd J ustin McNeil was c ontradictory as to the

e ve nts that tr ans pir e d th e nig ht o f t he kil lin g s and

that hi s o wn

te sti mony

wa s c on si st ent wi th h is theory of self- defe nse. The State c ounters that ther e wa s overwhe lming evide nce t o s u p p o rt the verdic t.

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39-13-202(a )(1) define s first deg ree murder, in pe rtinent part a s “a premeditate d and intentional killing of a nother.” Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39- 13 -2 02 (d ) p ro vid e s:

As us ed i n s u bdivision (a)(1) “pre meditation” is an ac t done af ter the e x erc ise of ref lection and judg ment. “Preme ditation” means that the intent to ki ll must have be e n f or me d p ri or to t he a c t itse lf

. I t is no t nec e ssa

ry that the purp os e to kil l pr e -e xist in th e m i n d o f t h e accuse d for a ny definite pe riod of time. The me ntal state of the

acc used at the time the a ccuse d alleg edly decide d to kill m ust be car efully considere d in or der to de termine whe ther the a ccuse d was suff iciently fre e fr om excitement and passion as to be c apable of pre meditation.

Tenn. Code Ann.§ 39- 13-202(d) . There fore , in order to c onvict the appellant of his indicte d offe nse, the State wa s r e qu ir e d to pr ov e be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t tha t the de fe nd ant k ill e d th e vic tim s w ith “pre meditation.” “[W] hether preme ditation is prese nt is a question of fa ct for the jury , and it may be infe rre d from the circ umstances surrounding the” commission of the cr ime. State v. Billy Gene Debow, Sr., N o. M1999-02678- C C A- R 3 -C D, 2000 W L1137465, at *4 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Aug . 2, 2000); see a lso St ate v. Da vidson, 121 S.W .3d 600, 614 (Tenn. 2003) ; State v. B land , 9 58 S.W. 2d 65 1, 66 0 (T e nn

. 19 97 ); State v. An de rs on , 83 5 S.W. 2d 60 0, 60 5 ( Te nn . Cr im. App. 1992). Some re levant fa ctors that tend t o support the exist ence of pre meditation include: “the use of a deadly wea pon upon an unarme d victim; the particular c ruelty of the killing; de clar ations by the def endant of an intent to kill; evidence of procur ement of a

wea pon; prepa

rations bef

ore the killing for c oncea lment of the cr ime, calmness immediately afte r the killing,” and evide nce that the victim was retreating or attempting to esca pe when killed. Davidson, 121 S.W .3d at 614; Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d at 660; see a lso St ate v. West, 844 S.W .2d 144, 148 (Tenn. 1992). “[T] he fac t that repe ated blows (or shots) we re inflicte d on the victim is not sufficie nt, by itself, to establish first-deg ree murder.” State v. Br own, 836 S.W.2d 530, 542 (Tenn. 1992).

L ooking at the evidenc e in a lig ht most favora ble to the State, the evide nce at trial showed the f o ll o w in g

. T h e a

p p e ll an t a dmi tt e d th a t h e k il le d b o th Ce dr ic M o e r in g s an d T yle r Jo n e s

. The testimony of Ms. Sutton, t he blood serolog ist, indi cate d u n equivocally that it was impossibl e for

e ith e r v ic timto h ave be e n in a stan din g or e ve n a sitti ng po sit ion a t the tim e the y we re sh ot d

ue to the lack o f b l o o d an y

wher e except for

the immediate ar ea of

the g unshot wounds. Omarr H urd testified that the appe llant admitted to shooting the victims while t hey sat in the rec liner and la y on the couc h.-8-

The only question at t ri al was whether the re w as pre meditation or whethe r the a ppellant killed the victims in self-defense as he procla imed. Self-def ense r equire s a re asonable belief that “for ce is immediately

nece ssary to protect a g ainst the other’ s use or attempted use of unlawful for ce” and that ther e wa s an “imminent dang er of death or serious bodi ly injury ” to the defendant. Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-11- 611(a) . When a def endant r elies upon a the ory of self-de fense
, the State bea rs the burde n of provingthat the def endant did not a ct in se lf-def ense. State v. Sims , 45 S.W .3d 1, 10 (Tenn. 2001) . Fur

ther, it is well s ettled t hat whether an individual acte d in self-de fense is a fac tual deter mination to be made by

the jury as the sole trie r of f

act. State v. Ivy , 868 S

. W

. 2 d 724, 727 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ). I t wa s with in the jur y ’s purv ie w t o r e

je c t th e se lf

-d e fe ns e the or

y . Se e State

v

. G o o d e , 9 5 6 S. W. 2 d

5 2 1
, 5 2 7 ( T e n n

. Cr im

. Ap p

. 1 9 9 7 )

. We c o n c lu d e th a t t h e r e w a s sufficie nt evidenc e for

the j ury to find the appellant g uilty of two counts of f

irst deg ree murder. T his issue has no merit.

Sentencing

“When re viewing sentenc ing issues . . . , the appellate court shall conduc t a de novo review on the re cord of

such issues. Such re view shall be c onducted with a pr esumption that the deter minations made by

the cour t from which the a

ppeal is take n are corr ect.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401( d). “H oweve r, the pre sumption of corre ctness which acc ompanies the trial c ourt’s ac tion is conditioned upon the aff i rm at i v e s howing in the rec ord that the trial c ourt consider ed the sentenc ing pr inciples and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances.” State v. Ashby , 823 S .W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . I n conductingour re view, we must consider the de fenda nt’s potential for reha bilitation, t he trial a

nd sentenc ing he aringevidenc e, the pr e-se ntence repor t, the s entencing principles, sente ncing alternative arguments, the nature and chara cter of t he offense, the enhanc ing and mitigating f

actor s, and the de fenda

nt’s statements. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-103( 5), -210( b); Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169. We are to also rec o gn i z e that the defenda nt bear s “the burde n of demonstratingthat the sentenc e is improper.” Ashby , 823 S.W .2d at 169.

T h e ap p el l an tar gu es o nap p ea l t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erre d b y o rd er i n g co n s ec u t i v e s en t en ci n g. Specifica lly , he arg ues t hat t he re cord is “a bsent of the spe cific statutory fac tors used to deter

mine if co n s ec u t ive sentenc ing is wa rra nted.” The State counter s that beca use there is no recor d of theW e no t e t hat t he o ri gi nal t echni cal record f i l ed i n t hi s C o urt did no t co nt ai n a t rans cri p t of t he sente n c i ng 2

hea r i ng

. O n A ug us t 1 5, 2 00 3, t he appel l ant f i l ed a mot i on t o s uppl ement t he appel l at e r ecor d. T hi s Co ur t en t er ed an

o rd er o n A ug ust 20
, 2 0 0 3
, o rd ering t he t rial co urt clerk to ce rti f y an d t ran sm i t a sup p l em en t al rec o rd w i t hin f i f t ee n d ays. T he t r i al cour t f

i l ed a l et t er wi t h t hi s Co ur t on Sept emb er 8, 200 3, s t at i ng t hat “ t he appel l ant di d not s ubmi t t o t he t r i al

c o u rt c le rk a tra n sc rip t o f the m o tio n fo r ne w tria l.

. . [t]h e re fo re the tria l c o u rt c le rk is un a b le to c e rtify a n d tra n sm it a

s uppl ement al recor d as reques t ed by [appel l ant ’ s co un s el ]

. ” D es pi t e t hi s l et t er , t he t r i al cour t s ubmi t t ed t wo vol umes

o f sup p l em en t al rec o rd o n Se p t em b er 2 3
, 2 0 0 3
, w hich co nsist ed o f t he t ran scrip t s o f

t he o p en i ng an d clo si ng st atem en t s. T hen, on S ep t em b er 26
, 20 0 3
, a t rans cri p t of t he sent enci ng heari ng was f i l ed wi t h t hi s C o urt

. T he t ra n sc rip t of t he
sent enci ng heari ng co nt ai ns a cert i f i cat i o n by t he cl erk of

t he t ri al c o urt that it represent s a t rue and acc urat e co p y of t he
tra n sc rip t. T h e S ta te d id no t f ile a n a d d iti o n a l b rie f o n c e the tra n sc rip t o f t h e se n te n c ing h e a r in g w a s fi le d w ith this C o u rt.

-9- sentenc ing he aringin the record, this Court must presume that the s entenc e im posed by the trial cour t is c or re c t. 2

A trial cour

t may impose consec utive sentenc ing upon a determination that one or more of the c ri te ri a

se t fo rt h in Te nn e sse e Cod e Anno tate d se c tio n 40 -3 5- 11 5( b) e xists

. Th is se c tio n p e rm its the trial cour

t to impos e conse cutive sente nces if the court finds, among othe r cr iteria, that “ the defe ndant is a dang erous of fende r whose be havior indicates littl e or no reg ard for hum an life, a nd no hesitation about committing a c rime in which the r isk to human life is high.” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-115( b)(4)

. Howeve r, befor e order ing the defe ndant to se rve c onsecutive se ntence s on the ba sis that he is a

da ng e ro us of

fe nd e r, the tr ia l c ourt

mus t f ind tha t th e re su lt in g s enten c e is

rea sonably

related to the seve rity

of the c rimes, n ec es s ar y to protect the public a g ainst further

cr i m i n al co n d u ct, and in ac cord w ith the ge nera l sentencingprinciples. See State v. Imfeld, 70 S.W .3d 698, 708-09 (Te nn. 2002); State v. Wil kerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 938-39 (Tenn. 1995)

.

I n imposing the c onsecutive sentence s, the t rial cour t describe d the cr imes as “g ruesome . . . the sce ne of .

. . two bloody
, dastardly
, homicides” and the manner in which the homicides oc curr ed as “a lmost l ike a pr ofessional killing. Tw o profe ssional killi ng s.” The tr ial cour t noted that the appellant maintaine d sever al di ffe rent versions of t he events of t he night of the murde r throug hout the investig ation an d t ri al
, an d t hat the appe llant even trie d to chang e his story on the day

of the

se nte nc inghe ari ng . T he tr ia l c ourt fo un d th a t it wo uld be “ manif e stl y un jus t . . . to the c omm

un ity if I did no t ru

n the se se nte nc e s c on se c uti ve ly

. . . it mus t be a de te rr e nt t o th e Me mph is c omm un ity that when you take two lives in this manner , y ou’re g oing to have to step up to the plate and pa y for it.” The c ourt then orde red the two life sentenc es to be ser ved conse cutively

.

Th e tr ia l c ourt

did no t e xpre ssl y

la be l th e a pp e lla nt a “ da ng e ro us of

fe nd e r” or

e xpre ssl y addre ss the two Wil kerson f actor s. See Wil kerson, 905 S.W .2d at 939. Neve rtheless, it is apparent fr om t he tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ing s th a t it fe lt c on se c uti ve se nte nc ingwa s nec e ssa ry to p ro te c t th e pu

bli c fr om furt he r c ri min a l c on du c t by

the a pp e lla nt, the se c on d Wil ke rs on

fa c tor . I d. F ur

the r, wh ile it

wa s n ot e xpre ssl y

a dd re sse d b y the tr ia l c ourt that c on se c uti ve se nte nc e s w e re re a so na bly re late d to the se ve ri ty

of the of fe ns e s, the fi rs t Wilk e rs on fa c tor , th e tr ia l c ourt did fi nd that th e he ino us ne ss of the c rimes “cr ie[d] out” for consec utive sentenc ing. I d. Under these c ircumstance s, we find that the impositi on of conse cutive sente ncingwas a ppropriate in this case.-10- Conclusion

After a thoroug h revie w of the rec ord, we find that none of the issues raised by the appe llant merit relief

, and thus, aff

irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE