### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs O ct obe r 6, 200 9 STA TE OFTEN NES SEE v. WILLIE HA LL
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. 07- 02706 Jam es M . L am m ey, Jr. , Judge

N o. W 2008- 01875- C C A
- R 3- C D - F i l ed F ebruary 18, 2010

T he d efen dan t , W i l l i e H al l , w as conv i c ted bya S helbyC ou ntyj uryof assault , a C l ass A m i s demeanor , and w as s ent ence d t o el even m ont hs , t w ent y - ni ne day s i n j ai l and as s es s ed a $500 fi ne. O n appea l , he ar gues t hat : ( 1) t he tr i al cour ter r ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o excl ude t he 911 t ape; ( 2) t he t r i al cour t gave i m pr oper j ur y i ns t ruct i ons on s el f- defe ns e and fl i ght ; ( 3) t he evi dence i s i ns uffi ci ent t o s us t ai n hi s convi ct i on; and ( 4) t he t r i al cour ti m pos ed an exc es s i ve s ent ence . A ft er r evi ew , w e affi r m t he j udgm ent of t he t r i al cour t and r emand f o r e n tryo f

a c o rre c ted ju d g m e n t to re f lec t th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t is to se rv e six typ e rc e n t o f h is s ent ence . T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C ri m i nal C ourt A f f i rm ed and Rem ande d f

or Ent r y of

C or r e c t e d Judg m e nt
A L AN E. G L ENN , J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e Co u r t , i n wh i c h D. K EL L Y T HO MAS , J R
. and C AMI L L E R. M C M UL L EN , J J

. , j oi ned.
R ober tJ ones , Shel byC ount yPubl i c D efe nder ; Phy l l i s A l uko, A s s i s t ant Publ i c D efe nder( on a p p e a l); an d Je n n if

e r H

. C a se , A ss ista n t P u b lic D e f e n d e r (at tria l), f

o r th e a p p e llan t, W ill ie H a ll.
R ober t E

. C ooper , J r . , A t t or ney G ener al and R epor t er ; C l ar k B

. T hor nt on, 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 ct A t t or ney G ener al ; and L or a Fow l er and D avi d Z ak, A s s i s t antD i s t r i ctA t t or neys G ener al , for t he appe l l ee, St at e of T ennes s ee. OP I NI ON
FACTSWe will hereinafter refer to Thom pson as the v ictim since he w as the v ictim of the o ffense at issue 1 inth is a pp ea l. -2- T h e d e f e n d a n t w a s in d icte d o n c h a rg e s o f a g g ra v a ted b u rg lar ya n d a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt ar i s i ng outof hi s ent er i ng Pol l y R ober t s ’ hous e and get t i ng i nvol ved i n a phy s i cal al t er cat i on w it h R o b ert s ’ ex- hus band, C hr i s t opherT hom ps on, on O ct ober26, 2006. A t r i al w as 1 c o n d u c te d A p ri l 2 8 th ro u g h M a y1 , 2 0 0 8

. St at e’ s P roof
P oll y R ob ert s t est i fi ed t hat she had been fr i end s w i t h the defen dan t for several y ears , and he ha d done s om e r epai rw ork fo r h er at her hom e and t anni ng s al on bus i nes s . She r eca l l ed t hat s he w as w i t h herex- hus band, t he vi ct i m , on O ct ober26, 2006, and t he tw o of t hem had j us tpi cked up gr ocer i es w hen t he def endantcal l ed her

. She s ai d t hats he di d not s peak t o t he d efe ndantbeca us e t he vi ct i m gr abbed the phone outof herhand and s t ar t ed c u rs in g a n d s c re a m in g a t th e d e f e n d a n t.
R ober t s t es t ifi ed thatw hen t heyar r i ved home, s he w entups t ai r s t o w or k on t he payr ol l for her bus i nes s , w hi l e t he vi ct i m s t ay ed dow ns t ai r s t o unl oad the gr ocer i es fr om t he veh i cl e. R ob ert s sai d that she hea rd “a ban g” o r “com m oti on , ” so she w ent back d ow nst ai rs . S h e sa w b lo o d o n th e lan d in g n e a r th e b o tto m o f th e sta irs, a n d a s s h e e n ter e d c a u tio u slyin to t he ki t chen, s he s aw t he vi ct i m and t he defe ndant fi ght i ng. She s ai d t hat t he defe ndanthad hi s ar m ar o u n d t h e v i c t i m’ s n e c k

. At s o me p o i n t , t h e v i c t i m s t a r t e d t o r e a c h for t he def e n d a n t ’ s e y e s , a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t s t a r t e d b i t i n g h i m. Rob e r t s s a i d t h a t s h e hi t t he de f e n d a n t wi t h “ a l i g h t

- wei g h t Te f l o n s k i l l e t ” t o g e t h i m o f f o f t h e v i c t i m a nd t o s t op t he f ig h t. T h e d e f

e n d a n t th e n g o t u p a n d h e a d e d o u t th e d o o r i n to th e g a ra g e . T h e v ic tim gr abbed “ t w o b ig w o oden ca ndl es t i cks ” and w entaft ert he def endant , butR ober t s got b e tw e e n th e m a n d th e d e f e n d a n t w a lk e d a w a y . R ober t s t es t i fi ed t hats he ca l l ed 911 foran ambul ance beca us e t h e vi ct i m w as “r eal pal e” a nd “bl eedi ng a l ot

. ” T he vi ct i m w as t aken byambul ance t o t he hos pi t al

. She s ai d t hat sh e d id n o t g iv e th e d e f e n d a n t p e rm iss io n to c o m e to h e r h o u se th a t n ig h t. O n cro ss-ex am ination , R o b erts t esti fied that in ad d it ion to the d ef en d an t do ing w o rk forheratt he t anni ng s al on, s he and the def endantw or ked t oget heron a pr oj ectt o r emodel the d ef en d an t’ s h o u se. S h e e x p lai n ed that sh e p u rch ase d an d ref inan ce d the d ef

en d an t’ s hous e, and t heym ade i m pr ovement s t o i t

. She s aid that the r emodel w as compl et e by O ct ober26, 2006, butt heyhad an a r r angementw her eby t he defenda nt w as s uppos ed t o m ake s o m e o f th e m o rt g a g e p a y m e n ts

.-3-

R o b erts t esti fied that sh e w as th e so le o w n er o f h er h o u se at 5 6 9 R ienz i D ri v e w h ere t he i nci dentoccurr ed, and t he vi ct i m ’ s offi ci al r esidenc e w as el s ew her e. She s ai d t hatt he defe ndanthad bee n t o herhous e bef or e and w as fami l i ar w i t h i t s l ay out

. She s t at ed t hathe

“ [ s]o m e tim e s” u se d th e g a ra g e d o o r to e n ter a n d e x it h e r h o m e . R o b e rts a c k n o w led g e d th a t, on t he ni ghtof t he i nci dent , s he di d not s ee the def endantent erherhous e ors ee hi m hi tt he v ic tim w ith th e s k ille t.
T h e v ictim tes tifie d th a t h e h a d b e e n m a rrie d to R o b e rts tw ice , b u t th e yw e re c u rre n tly di vor ced. T he vi ct i m s ai d t hat he knew t he def endantbeca us e R ober t s had hi r ed hi m t o do m ai nt enanc e w or k att he t anni ng s al on. T he vi ct i m r eca l l ed t hat t he ni ght of t he i nci dent , he a n d R o b e rts b o u g h t g ro c e rie s, a te d in n e r at a re sta u ra n t, a n d sto p p e d a t th e tan n in g sa lo n to chec k on an empl oy ee. H e sai d t hat w hi l e t hey w er e att he t anni ng s al on, t he phone r ang and he r ecog nized the defen dan t ’s vo i ce as t he cal l er aski ng t o s peak t o R ob ert s. T h e v ictim s ta te d th a t h e h u n g th e p h o n e u p o n th e d e f e n d a n t, a n d h e a n d R o b e rt s le f t th e s a lo n . T h e v ictim tes tifie d th a t as th e y w e re d riv in g h o m e , th e d e f e n d a n t c a lled R o b e rts’ c e ll phone fi ve t i m es . T h e v ict im sai d t hathe i gnor ed s ever al of t he ca l l s butans w er ed t hr ee t i m es . H e r eca l l ed t hateac h cal l “got pr ogr es s i vel y w or s e. ” T he vi ct i m s t ar t ed byt el l i ng t he defe ndan t, “St op cal l i ng, y ou w er e t ol d t o l eave us al one, ” butt he def endantcal l ed bac k. T he vi ct i m r eca l l ed t hat“[t ] her e w as pr ofani t y - fr om hi m t ow ar ds m e, t her e w as w or ds , and I excha nged w or ds w i t h hi m agai n - hung up agai n - t he l as tone, he w as j us ts cre ami ng p ro f a n iti e s; a n d I sc re a m e d p ro f a n iti e s b a c k - v e ry a n g ry - h e w a s f u rio u s. I w a s a n g rya t th is poi nt , t oo[. ] ”
T he vi ct i m t es t i fi ed t hatw hen t hey arr i ved home, he and Rober t s carr i ed t he gr ocer i es i n t hr ough t he gar age. H e s ai d t hathe s hut the doorfr om t he gar age i nt o t he ki t chen, and R ober t s w entups t ai r s w hi l e he s t ay ed dow ns t ai r s t o putt he gr ocer i es aw ay . A s he w as put t i ng t he gr ocer i es aw ay , he hea r d a l oud bang and s aw t hat i t w as caus ed byt he doorfr om t he g arage i nto t he k i t chen hit t i ng t he w al l

. T he v i ct i m recal l ed, “[T he d efen dan t ] burs t t hr ough t he door and [i t ] s l amm ed agai ns t t he w al l , and he j us tr an atm e and gr abbed me by t he nec k and at t acke d m e. . . . H e w as j us tfur i ous . ”
T h e v ictim tes tifie d th a t as h e a n d th e d e f e n d a n t f o u g h t, he y e lled f

o r R o b e rts to c a ll t he pol i ce. W hen R ober t s came dow n t he s t ai r s , he and t he defe ndant “fe l l i nt o her ” as t hey w er e fi ght i ng. T he vi ct i m w as t hr ow n on hi s back on t he s t ai r s , and the def endantpi cked up a sk il letan d h itthe v ict im in th e he ad

. T h e victi m said that h is fing er w as in the d ef en d an t’ s c h e e k , a n d th e d e f

e n d a n t b it h is fin g e r an d h is ne c k

. T h e d e f e n d a n t sto p p e d w h e n R o b e rts h it h im o n th e h e a d w ith th e s k ille t.
T he vi ct i m t es t i fi ed t hat t he defe ndant l eftt hr ough t he gar age, and the vi ct i m pi cked-4-

up a bi g w ooden ca ndl es t i ck and w ent aft er hi m . H ow ever , R ober t s y el l ed forhi m t o s t op, and he r etur ned t o t he hous e. T he vi ct i m s ai d t hat t he def endantgoti nt o hi s carand dr ove aw a y . He r e c a l l e d t h a t Rob e r t s c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e , a n d h e was t a k e n b y a mbu l a n c e t o t he ho spi t al w here he st ay ed u nti l 5:30 t he next m orni ng . H i s i njur i es r equ i red t hir t een st i t ches. T he vi ct i m i dent i fi ed phot ogr aphs o f h is injuri es and t he cr i m e s cene , w hi ch w er e ent er ed in to e v id e n c e . T h e v ict im stat ed that h e a n d R o b erts bu il t th e ho u se on R ienz i D ri v e i n 2 0 0 0 b ef o re t heydi vor ced, t hen he qui t- clai m ed i tt o R ober t s . A tt he t i m e of the i nci dent , he had be en liv in g th e re w ith R o b e rt s f o r a p p ro x im a te ly tw o m o n th s . O n cr os s - exami nat i on, t he vi ct i m t es t i fi ed that t he hous e on R i enzi D r i ve w as nott he r es i dence l i s t ed on hi s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e oron t he t i t l e of hi s t ruck. T he vi ct i m s t at ed thathe c o u ld n o t re c a ll w h e th e r th e d e f e n d a n t w a s w e a rin g a n y th in g o n h is h e a d th a t n ig h t b u t sa id t her e w as a hat i n t he house t hat w as not t her e befor e t he i nci dent

. T he vi ct i m s ai d t hatt he defe ndanthi thi m w i t h t he s ki l l et“mul t i pl e t i m es . ”
O ffi cerD avi d L i nvi l l e w i t h the M em phi s Pol i ce D epar t m entt es t i fi ed t hathe re sp o n d e d to a h o m e in v a sio n c a ll at 56 9 R ien z i D riv e o n O c to b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 6 . U p o n a rriv a l, O ffi cerL i nvi l l e enc ount er ed t he vi ct i m , w ho “l ooked l i ke he had been i n a pr et t ygood fi ght [and] w as cal m but di s or i ent ed. ” H e s ai d t hat t he vi ct i m “w as bl eedi ng pr et t y good at t he tim e .” O f

f ic e r L in v ille a ls o s p o k e w ith R o b e rt s w h o w a s “ v e ry n e rv o u s [ a n d ] v e ry u p s e t.” H e s a id th a t th e s u s p e c t w a s n o t a t th e s c e n e . M at tT ay l or , a fi r efi ght erand par amedi c w i t h t he M emphi s Fi r e D epar t m ent , t es t i fi ed th a t h e re sp o n d e d to th e sc e n e in th is c a se . T a y lo r o b se rv e d th a t th e v ictim w a s “ c o v e re d in a pr et t ygood amount of bl ood” and had bl ood runni ng dow n hi s fac e. T ay l ors ai d t hatt he vi ct i m had a tw o- i nch l ace r at i on on hi s for ehea d, a bi t e mar k on hi s neck, and a de ep bi t e on o n e o f h is f in g e rs th ro u g h to th e b o n e . H e a ls o h a d a b ra s io n s a n d s c ra p e s o n th e s c a lp

. D ef endant’ s P roof
T he d ef endant t es t i fi ed t hathe w as fr i ends w i t h Pol l yR ober t s , and theyal s o had a b u sin e s s r e la ti o n s h ip “ f lip p in g h o u se s.” H e sa id th a t th e yu se d h is “ h o u se a s c o llate ra l to i m pr ove and t ake moneyoutt o puti nt o ot herbus i nes s ventur es . ” H e also di d handym an w or k forR ober t s athert anni ng s al on. T he def endants t at ed t hathi s bus i nes s r el at i ons hi p and fr i ends hi p w i t h R ober t s w er e s t i l l ongoi ng on O ct ober 26, 2006. T he defenda nt s ai d t hathe h a d b e e n to R o b e rt s ’ h o u s e o n R i e n z i D ri v e s e v e ra l tim e s p ri o r t o th e d a yo f th e in c id e n t.
T h e d e f e n d a n t tes tifie d th a t o n O c to b e r 26 , 2 0 0 6 , h e a ttem p ted to c o n tac t R o b e rts to-5-

di s cus s t he r ece ntappr ai s al of t he house he s ol d her , fi r s tbycal l i ng heratt he t anni ng s al on. H e sa id th a t, w h e n h e c a lled th e sa lo n , “ [ T h e v ictim ] a n sw e re d th e p h o n e a n d h u n g u p in [hi s ] fac e. ” The defe ndants ai d t hat he next t r i ed t o r eac h R ober t s on hercel l phone t w i ce, butt he vi ct i m ans w er ed ea ch t i m e and “y el l [ed] i n t he phone. ” The defe ndants t at ed t hathe di d nots ayany thing to the v ic t i m dur i ng t he ce l l phone ca l l s , and the ca l l s ended byt he defe ndanthangi ng up beca us e t he vi ct i m “w as cus s i ng [hi m ] out

. ”
T h e d e f e n d a n tt e s t i f

i e d t h a th e n e x tt r i e d t o r e a c h Ro b e r t s b y g o i n g t o h e rh o u s e . At t he hous e, t he def

endants aw t hatt he gar age doorw as open and t hat t he door f r om t he gar age i nt o t he house w as “par t i al l y cr acke d. ” H e s t ood on t he s t eps out s i de the doorand y el l ed for R o b erts. T h e d ef

en d an t sai d , “T h e d o o r sw u n g o p en , an d [th e v ict im ] w as stan d ing there w i t h a s ki l l et , and he s w ung t he s ki l l et dow n on m e. ” T he def endantr eca l l ed t hathe ende d up i ns i de t he hous e w i t h t he vi ct i m s t andi ng overhi m an d t hr eat eni ng t o ki l l hi m . T he defe ndants ai d t hathe di d notr emem ber w hathe di d aft ert he vi ct i m t hr eat ened hi m , buthe rem em b ere d b eing p u sh ed o v er a m ag az ine ra ck an d the v ict im try ing to claw h is ey es. In re s p o n s e , th e d e f

e n d a n t b it th e v ic tim ’s f in g e r. T h e d e f e n d a n t tes tifie d th a t at s o m e p o in t, th e v ictim p u sh e d h im , a n d th e y f e ll o n to R ober t s on t he s t ai r w el l

. W hen he got up, the vi ct i m “bea t [] ” hi m w i t h t he s ki l l etunt i l t he defe ndan t g o t c l o s e e n o u g h t o b i t e t h e v i c t i m o n t h e n e c k

. Th e v i c t i m f e l l d o wn, t he d e f e n d a n t p u n c h e d h im , an d th e v ictim let g o o f th e sk ill e t. T h e d e f

e n d a n t sa id th a t R o b e rts pi cked up the s ki l l etand hi th im , say ing t o l ett he vi ct i m go. T he def endants t at ed t hat “[a ] ft er[R ober t s ] hi tm e w i t h t he s ki l l et , I t ook t he s ki l l et and cr us hed t he handl e on i t

. ” The defe ndantt es t i fi ed t hataft erhe r el eas ed the vi ct i m , t he vi cti m g rab b ed a candl es t i ck and ch ase d h im o u t of

the h o u se. T h e d ef

en d an t sai d h e “ lef

t in a h u rry ” v ia t h e g ara g e d o o r. T he def endants t at ed t hat he di d nothi tt he vi ct i m w i t h t he s ki l l ett hatni ghtand onl yhi tt he v ic tim w ith h is f

is t o n c e . T he def endantt es t i fi ed t hathe w as w ear i ng a bl ue N aut i ca ha tt hatni ght

. H e s ai d t hat a s a re su lt o f

th e in c id e n t, th e sk in w a s to rn o n h is h a n d , h e h a d a f les h w o u n d o n h is c h e st, a n d b ru is e s o n h is h e a d . T h e d e f e n d a n t te s tif

ie d th a t h e h a d a d e g re e in b io c h e m is tr y . O n cr os s - exami nat i on, t he defenda nt t es t i fi ed t hat he and R ober t s onl y“fl i pped” one ho use and t hat w as t he h ou se R ob ert s bou gh tfrom him

. H e ackn ow l ed g e d that R ob ert s’ name w as t he onl yname on t he r efi nanci ng paperw or k. T he def endantadmi t t ed t hat he had notbeen i nvi t ed t o R ober t s ’ hous e the ni ghtof t h e incid en t. H e al s o admi t t ed t hathe w as up setbecau se he did no tt hink t he v i ct i m shou l d int erfer e i n h i s and R ob ert s’ bu sin e ss m at t er s . T he defe ndant acknow l edged thathe r ecogni zed the vi ct i m ’ s t ruck parked out s i de R o b e rt s ’ h o u s e , y e t h e d e c id e d to g o in th e g a ra g e a n yw a y .-6-

T he def endantt es t i fi ed t hataft erhe l eft R o b erts’ house fol l ow i ng t he i nci dent , he w enthom e and c al l ed hi s gi r l fr i end but di d not cal l t he pol i ce. H e s ai d t hathe t al ked t o t he pol i ce the nextdayand w as t ol d he coul d be faci ng cr i m i nal char ges . H e r eca l l ed t hata fe w d a y s la te r, t h e p o lic e c a m e to h is h o u s e to a rr e s t h im

. O n r edi r ectexami nat i on, t he def endantt es t i fi ed t hat he cal l ed t he pol i ce the dayaft er t he i nci dentbeca us e hi s car had been t ow ed. H e sai d t hat he di d notl eave M emphi s bet w een t he dat e of the i nci dentand t he dat e he w as ar r es t ed. O n r ecr os s exami nat i on, he admi t t ed t hathe t houghthe w as goi ng t o be arr es t ed butdi d nottur n hi m s el f i n. H e al s o el abor at ed t hathe ca l l ed hi s gi r l fr i end af t ert he i nci dentand t hen had a f ri en d w ho w as w i t h hi m t hat n ig h t ta k e h im to h is g ir lf ri e n d ’s h o u s e .

R ebut t al P roof
T h e tap e o f

th e 9 1 1 c a ll fro m th e in c id e n t w a s p layed f o r th e v ictim . T h e v ictim t es t i fi ed t hathe r ecogni zed Rober t s ’ voi ce on the t ape a nd hi s ow n voi ce i n t he bac kgr ound.
S u rr eb u ttal P ro o f
T he t ape of

t he 911 cal l w as pl ay ed forR ober t s , and s he r ecogni zed he rvoi ce on the r ecor di ng. She s ai d t hat s he t ol d t he oper at or t hat t he defe ndant had at t acke d t he vi ct i m and h i th i m wi t h a s k i l l e tb e c a u s e t ha t w a s wh a tt h e v i c t i m h a d t o l d h e ra n d s h e b e l i e v e d h i m. She s t at ed t hats he t ol d t he oper at ort hats he w ant ed t he def endantarrested beca us e t he v ictim to ld h e r to h a v e th e d e f e n d a n t ar re ste d . R o b e rts s tate d th a t sh e b e liev e d th e v ictim coul d hear her on t he phone be caus e theyw er e t al ki ng back a nd for t h and “[ h] e w as t el l i ng [her ] w hatt o s ay . ” She expl ai ned t hats he t ol d t h e o per at ort hats he knew t he def endant beca us e he ha d done s om e w or k for herbeca us e s he di d not“w antt hem t o t hi nk t hati tw as j us t a r andom s om eone [w ho] br oke i n [her ] hous e, ” but s he t es t i fi ed t hat s he and t he d e f e n d a n t w e re a ls o f

ri e n d s . R ob ert s t e s t i fi e d tha ts he t ol d the op e r a t ort he de fe nd a ntha d a t t a c ke d h e rbecause “[the vi ct i m ] w as s ay i ng ‘ [h] e hur ty ou, ’ ” buts h e said the def endantw as onl yhol di ng her back “ t o keep them from fal l i ng on [her ] w hen [t hey ] w er e on t he t w o s t eps . ” She s ai d t hat s he w as “del i r i ous ” w hen s he made t he 911 ca l l , and one of t he caus es o f how s he w as fee l i ng w as t hat“[the vi ct i m ] had bee n on coca i ne. ”
F o llo w in g th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e p ro o f , th e ju ry re tu rn e d w ith a v e rd ict o f n o t g u ilty o f a g g ra v a ted b u rg lar yin c o u n t o n e a n d g u iltyo f th e les se r-in c lu d e d o f

f e n se o f a ss a u lt i n c o u n t tw o .-7- A N A L Y S IS
I . 91 1 Tape
T he def endantar gues t hatt he t r i al cour t err ed i n admi t t i ng t he 911 t ape i nt o evi dence , ar gui ng t hatt he t ape di d notcont ai n pr operr ebut t al evi dence , w as cum ul at i ve, cont ai ned i nadmi s s i bl e hea r s ay , and “i t s m ar gi nal pr obat i ve val ue w as s ubs t ant i al l y out w ei ghed byt he dangerof unfa i rpr ej udi ce[

. ] ”
P o lly R o b e rts tes tifie d th a t sh e c a lled 9 1 1 a f ter th e d e f

e n d a n t’s u n in v ited e n tryin to h er h o u se a n d fig h t w ith the victi m . T h e 91 1 tape w as u n av ail ab le at t h e e n d o f th e S tat e’s pr oof, s o t he St at e r es t ed w i t hout at t empt i ng t o i nt r oduce the t ape. D ur i ng t he pr es ent at i on of hi s pr oof, t he defe ndant t es t i fi ed t hat he had tr i ed t o cal l R ober t s s ever al t i m es t hatni ght t o d i scuss a bu si ness m at t er, bu tt he v i ct i m hu ng up on him

. T herefore, he w ent t o R ob ert s’ hous e t o t al k t o her but w as at t acke d by t he vi ct i m aft er he ent er ed R ober t s ’ gar age a nd s t ood on t he s t ai r s ou tsi d e the door i nt o t he hous e. T he def endantdes cr i bed fi ght i ng w i t h t he v ic tim in a n e f

f o rt to d e f e n d h im s e lf

f ro m th e v ic tim ’s a tta c k

. A ft ert he def

endantr es t ed hi s cas e, t he St at e s oughtt o i nt r oduce the t ape of t he 911 cal l as r ebut t al evi dence

. T he def endantfi l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne t o excl ude t he t ape, ar gui ng t hati tcont ai ned i nadmi s s i bl e hea r s ay , w as cumul at i ve, and i m pr oper r ebut t al evi dence

. T he St at e r es ponded t hatt he t ape w as admi s s i bl e undert he exc i t ed utt er ance e x ce p ti o n t o t he h e a rs a yru le a n d w a s b e in g u s e d to re b u t th e d e f e n d a n t’ s c la im o f

s e lf -d e f e n s e . T he cour tl i s t ened t o t he t ape and found thatt he s t at ement s on t he t ape w er e exc i t ed u ttera n c e s a n d th a t alth o u g h m o st o f th e sta tem e n ts o n th e tap e “ m a yb e c u m u lativ e . . . [in t hat ] t heyhave be en t esti fied t o[, ]

. . . i tw on’ tbe anyt hi ng s o pr ej udi ci al beca us e they ’ ve h ea rd italread y [.]” T h e c o u rtn o ted th at t h e tap e w o u ld h av e b ee n ad m issi b le i n the S tat e’s case- i n-chi ef, bu ti tal so fou nd t hat i t w as rel evan ti n rebutt al t o sho w , am on g o t her t hings, t hatt he def

endantw as notw elcome atR ober t s ’ hous e, “thathi s i nt entw as nott o go over t her e and t al k, ” and thatt he def endantand R ober t s ’ r el at i ons hi p “w as nots uch as t he defe ndanthad des cr i bed i t

. ”
R ebut t al evi dence i s evi dence t hat “t ends t o expl ai n or cont r over tevi dence pr oduced byan adve r s e par t y . ” St at e v. B r ow n, 795 S. W

. 2d 689, 695 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1990) ( ci t i ng C ozzol i no v. St at e, 584 S. W

. 2d 765 ( T enn. 1979)

. T he admi s s i on of r ebut t al t es t i m onyl i es w i t hi n t he di s cr et i on of t he t r i al cour tand w i l l notbe r ever s ed unl es s t her e has been a cl ear a b u se o f d isc re tio n . S tate v . K e n d ric k s, 9 4 7 S .W .2 d 8 7 5 , 8 8 4 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ). T h is cour thas obs er ved t hat“i ti s w i t hi n t he di s cr et i on of t he t r i al cour t t o per m i t t he st at e, i n a cr i m i nal cas e, t o i nt r oduce i n r ebut t al even t es t i m onyw hi ch sh o u ld h a v e b e e n in tro d u c e d in-8-

c h ie f.” Id . (c ita tio n o m itte d ).
R el evantevi dence i s “evi dence havi ng anyt endenc yt o m ake the exi s t ence of anyfac t t hat i s of conse quence t o t he det er m i nat i on of t he ac t i on m or e pr obabl e orl es s pr obabl e t han it w o u ld b e w ith o u t th e e v id e n c e .” T e n n . R . E v id . 4 0 1 . G e n e ra lly , rele v a n t ev id e n c e is admi s s i bl e and i r r el evantevi d ence i s i nadmi s s i bl e. I d. 402. R el evantevi dence m aybe e x c lu d e d , h o w e v e r, “if

its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is su b sta n tially o u tw e ig h e d b y th e d a n g e r of u n f a ir pr ej udi ce, confus i on of t he i s s ues , orm i s l eadi ng t he j ur y , or bycons i der at i ons of undue del ay , w as t e of t i m e, orneedl es s pr es ent at i on of cumul at i ve evi dence

. ” I d. 403.
H ear s ay , an out

- of- cour t s t at ement offe r ed t o pr ove t he t ruth of t he mat t eras s er t ed, i s gener al l yi nadmi s s i bl e. See i d. 801- 802. H ow ever , exci t ed ut t er ance s , s t at ement s r el at i ng t o a s t ar t l i ng eventorcondi t i on m ade w hi l e t he dec l ar antw as undert he s t r es s of exc i t ement c a u se d b yth e e v e n t o r c o n d iti o n , are n o t ex c lu d e d b yth e h e a rsa y ru le. Id . 8 0 3 (2 ). T h e re is a tw o f o ld ra tio n a le f

o r a d m itt in g e x c ited u ttera n c e s: F i rs t , si nce thi s excep t i on app l i es t o st at em ents w here i t i s l i kelyt here w as a lac k o f re f lec tio n --a n d p o ten tial f

a b ric a tio n --b ya d e c lar a n t w h o spon t aneo usly excl ai m s a s t at ement i n r es pons e t o an exci t i ng event , t her e i s l i t t l e l i kel i hood, i n t heor yatl eas t , of i ns i ncer i t y . . . . Second, or di nar i l y t he st at ement i s m ade w h ile th e m e m o ryo f

th e e v e n t is still f

re sh in th e d e c lar a n t’s m in d . T h is m e a n s th a t th e o u t-o f

-c o u rt sta tem e n t ab o u t an e v e n t m a y b e m o re a c c u ra te th a n a m u c h la te r i n -c o u rt d e s c ri p tio n o f it.
S tate v . S to u t, 46 S .W .3 d 6 8 9 , 6 9 9 (T e n n . 2 0 0 1 ) (c itati o n s o m itt e d ), su p e rse d e d b ysta tu te o n o ther g rou n d s as s tat ed in S tat e v . O d o m , 1 3 7 S

. W

. 3 d 5 7 2 (T en n . 2 0 0 4 ).
T he fi r s t r equi r ement , t hat t her e be a s t ar t l i ng event or condi t i on, i s br oadl ycons t rued, encompas s i ng anyevent“s uffi ci ent l ys t ar t l i ng to s us pend the nor m al , r efl ect i ve t hought pr oc e s s e s o f

t h e d e c l a r a n t

. ” St o u t , 4 6 S. W

. 3 d a t6 9 9

. Th e s e c o n d r e q u i r e me n t , t h a tt he st at em ent r el at e t o the st art l i ng even tor cond i t i on , i s sat i sfi ed if the st at em ent “descr i be[s] al l orpar tof t he eve ntor c o n di t i on, ordeal [s ] w i t h t he ef fec tori m pactof t hateventor c o n d iti o n .” Id . “T h e th ird re q u ire m e n t, th a t th e sta tem e n t b e m a d e w h ile th e d e c lar a n t is undert he s t r es s orexci t ement fr om t he eve ntorcondi t i on, r el at es m ost d ir ec tl yt o t he under l y i ng r at i onal e fort he exc ept i on. ” I d. at699- 700.
U pon r evi ew , w e ca nnotconcl ude thatt he t r i al cour t abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng t he 911 t ape t o r ebutevi dence of t he defe ndant ’ s i nt ent i n goi ng t o Pol l y R ober t s ’ hous e and his cl ai m of sel f-defense. T he recordi ng rel ay ed thatt he d efen dan tenter ed int o R ob ert s’ hous e, uni nvi t ed, and at t acke d T hom ps on. T he vi ct i m can be hea r d i n t he bac kgr ound on a-9-

few occa s i ons , but , fort he mostpar t , i tap p ea rs th at R ober t s i s r el ay i ng event s t hats he w i t nes s ed. T he t ape i s t o s om e degr ee cumul at i ve i n t hat R ober t s had al r eadyt es t i fi ed t o t he event s s he r el ay ed t o t he oper at or . H ow ever , t he pr obat i ve val u e o f the evi dence i s not s ubs t ant i al l yout w ei ghed byt he “nee dl es s pr es ent at i on of cumul at i ve evi dence

. ” See Tenn. R

. E v id. 40 3

. M o reo v er, al tho u g h itw as so m ew h at pre jud ici al to the d ef

en d an t f o r th e jury t o hear an ex cit ed and upse tR ober t s s ay i ng t hats he w ant ed the def endantar r es t ed, s uch s t at ement s w er e not s o unfai r l y pr ej udi ci al as t o s ubs t ant i al l yout w ei gh t he pr obat i ve val ue o f th e e v id e n c e . S e e id

. T he def endantas s er t s t hatm anyof t he s t at ement s on t he t ape a r e hea r s ayand do not qual i fyas exci t ed ut t er ance s beca us e theyw er e not m ade w hi l e R ober t s w as s t i l l act i ng under the s tr ess o f th e startl ing ev en t bec au se th e d ef en d an t h ad alread yleft t h e sc en e. H o w ev er, a s f o u n d b yth e trial c o u rt a n d h a v in g re v iew e d th e tap e , the tap e re late s th a t R o b e rts w a s in a n e x c ited sta te f

ro m th e sta rtling e v e n t w h e n sh e talk e d to th e o p e ra to r. M o re o v e r, th e re is no r equi r ement t hatt he ca us e of the s t ar t l i ng event s t i l l be pr es ent ort hatt he s t ar t l i ng event s t i l l be ongoi ng – onl yt hatt he dec l arants t i l l be undert he s t r es s orexci t ement fr om t he event

. W e al s o not e t hat m any of t he s t at ement s on t he t ape do noteven qua l i fyas hear s ay a s th e yw e re n o t o f

f e re d to p ro v e th e tr u th o f th e m a tte r a s s e rt e d

. I n anyevent , even i f t he t r i al cour terr ed i n admi t t i ng t he 911 t ape, anyer r orw as har m l es s . T he admi s s i on of t he t ape a l l ow ed the def endantt o cal l R ober t s as a s ur r ebut t al w i t nes s , and much of R ober t s ’ su rre but t al t es t i m onycoul d be vi ew ed as benef i ci al t o t he d ef en se. M o reo v er, th e re w a s n o thing o n the tap e so inf lam m atoryas to h av e “ m o re p ro b a b ly th a n n o t a f

f e c te d th e ju d g m e n t.” T e n n . R . A p p . P . 3 6 (b ).

I I . Jur y I ns t r uc t i ons T he def endantar gues t hatt he tr i al cour tgave i m pr oper i ns t ruct i ons t o t he j ur yon s el fdefe ns e and f

l i ght

. D efe ndant s have a “cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o a corr ectand com pl et e cha r ge of t he l aw . ” St at e v. T eel , 793 S. W

. 2d 236, 249 ( T enn. 1990)

. A ccor di ngl y , t r i al cour t s have t he dut y t o gi ve “a com pl et e char ge of t he l aw appl i cabl e t o t he fa ct s of t he ca s e. ” St at e v. D avenpor t , 973 S. W

. 2d 283, 287 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1998) ( ci t i ng St at e v. H arbi s on, 704 S. W

. 2d 314, 319 ( T enn. 1986) )

. W hen r evi ew i ng chal l enged j ur yi ns t ruct i ons , w e mustl ook at “the ch arg e a s a w h o le in determ ining w h ethe r p rejud ici al erro r h as b ee n co m m it ted.” In r e E s t at e of E l am, 738 S. W

. 2d 169, 174 ( T enn. 1987) ; s ee a l s o St at e v. Phi pps , 883 S. W

. 2d 1 3 8 , 1 4 2 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). A c h a rg e is p re ju d icia lly e rro n e o u s “ if it fa ils to f

a irly subm i tt he legal i ssues ori f i t m i sl eads the j ury as t o the appli cable l aw . ” S t at e v. H od ges, 944 S. W

. 2d 346, 352 ( T enn. 1997)

. E r r oneous j ur y i ns t ruct i ons r equi r e r ever s al unl es s t he er r ori s har m l es s bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt

. See W el ch v. St at e, 836 S. W

. 2d 586, 591 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ).-10- A . S el f- D efense
T he def endantt es t i fi ed t hatt he vi ct i m at t ack ed hi m as he w as s t andi ng i ns i de t he gar age ne xtt o t he door i nt o R ober t s ’ hous e ca l l i ng outforher

. H i s t es t i m onyi ndi cat ed t hat hi s fi ght i ng w i t h t he vi ct i m w as i n s el f- defe ns e. T hus , t he def endant ’ s t es t i m onyfai r l yr ai s ed th e iss u e o f

se lf -d e f e n se , an d th e trial c o u rt g a v e a f o u r-p a g e in stru c tio n o n se lf -d e f e n se to t h e j u r y. T he def endantobj ect ed t o t he fol l ow i ng por t i on of t he t r i al cour t ’ s j ur yi ns t ruct i on on s el f- defe ns e: A nyper s on us i ng for ce inten ded orl i kel yt o caus e dea t h ors er i ous bodi l yi nj ur yw i t hi n hi s o rherow n r es i dence i s pr es um ed t o have he l d a r eas onabl e fe arof i m m i nentper i l of dea t h ors eri o u s b odi l yi nj ur yt o s el f, fami l y , ora mem berof t he househol d w hen t hat for ce i s us ed aga i ns tanot her p e rso n , n o t a m e m b e r of th e f a m ilyo r h o u se h o ld , w h o u n law f u llya n d f

o rc ib ly ent er s orhas unl aw ful l yand for ci bl yent er ed the r es i dence , and t he per s on u sin g th e f

o rc e k n e w o r h a d re a so n to b e liev e th a t an u n law f u l an d f o rc ib le e n tr yo c c u rr e d

. I n gi vi ng t hi s por t i on of t he i ns t ruct i on, t he cour tr eas oned t hati f t he j u ry rejected the defe ndant ’ s cl ai m t hat h e w as at t acke d byt he vi ct i m fi r s t , t hen i ts houl d be t ol d t hatt he vi ct i m had t he r i ghtt o defe nd hi m s el f fr om t he def endant ’ s at tack. T he def endantar gued t hat“t he s el f- defe ns e i ns t ruct i on s houl d i ns t ructt he j ur y on how t o appl yt hatdefe ns e t o [t he defe ndant ’ s ] act i ons , ” not t he vi ct i m ’ s act i ons . T he cour t found t hatt he i ns t ruct i on appl i ed t o c o n f l i c t i n g f a c t s r a i s e d b y t h e p r o o f

, n o t i n g t h a t“ i f

[ t h e j u r y ] [ d o e s n o t ] b e l i e v e t h e v i c t i m, t hen t hi s . . . w oul d notappl yt o t he def endant ; i tw oul d be harm l es s . ”
T he def endant ar gues , and t he St at e conc edes , on appea l t hati tw as er r orfort he t r i al c o u rt to g iv e th is po rtio n o f th e se lf -d e f e n se c h a rg e . W e a g re e . T h is co u rt h a s p r e v io u sly det er m i ned t hatt he gi vi ng of s uch i ns t ruct i on w as err or under fac t s s i m i l art o t he fa ct s i n t he ca s e a t han d

. S ee S tat e v . B elser, 94 5 S

. W

. 2 d 7 7 6 , 7 8 1 -82 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ). In B el s er , t he def

endantand t he vi ct i m w er e i nvol ved i n an al t er cat i on at t he vi ct i m ’ s r es i dence

. I d. at779. T he St at e r eques t ed t he cha r ge on t he bas i s t hatt her e i s a pr es um pt i on t hatone i s act i ng i n s el f- defe ns e w hen he i s at t acke d athi s r es i dence

. I d. at781. T he cour tgave the r e q u e s t e d c h a r g e , a n d t h i s c o u r t c o n c l u d e d o n a p p e a l , “ Th e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f t h e [s el fd e f e n se ] sta tu te is th a t se lf -d e f e n se m a y b e u til ize d in d e f e n se o f th e p ro se c u tio n ; itis n o t, how ever , anyj us t i fi cat i on for a vi ct i m ’ s conduct

. T hus , t he i ns t ruct i on w as notw arr ant ed byt he fa ct s . ” I d. at 782. T hi s i s pr eci s el y t he cas e her e, and t he t r i al cour ter r ed i n gi vi ng-11-

th is p o rt io n o f

th e s e lf -d e f e n s e in s tr u c tio n . A l t hough i tw as er r or , s uch err orw as har m l es s in cont extof t he ent i r e i ns t ruct i on. S e e P h ip p s, 8 8 3 S .W .2 d a t 1 4 2

. T h e trial c o u rt p ro p e rlyc h a rg e d th e ju ryo n th e a p p lica b le por t i on of t he s el f- defe ns e i ns t ruct i on and re i t er at ed t hat i tw as t he St at e’ s bur den t o pr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatt he def endantdi d notacti n s el f- defe ns e. T h ere fo r e, t he instruction as a w h o le co rrectl yset fo rt h the law o n self-d ef en se. A s d id the co u rtin B elser, w e c o n clud e tha t, in co n text, the instruction w as n o t harm fu l t o the d ef en d an t. S ee B elser, 9 4 5 S .W .2 d a t 7 8 2 -8 3

. B. Fl i ght
T he proof att r i al es t abl i s hed t hatt he def endantl eftt he s cene of t he i nci dentand w as a rr e s te d s e v e ra l d a y s la te r w h e n th e p o lic e c a m e to h is h o m e . T he t r i al cour t gave t he pat t ern j ur y i ns t ruct i on on fl i ght , t o w hi ch the d efendant obj ect ed. T he def

endantar gued t hat t he evi dence di d not s how t he s econd e l ement of fl i ght

– a su b se q u e n t h id in g o u t, ev a sio n , co n c e a lm e n t in th e c o m m u n ity , o r le a v in g th e c o m m u n ity fo r p arts u n k n o w n . T h e co u rtb ase d it s d ec isi o n to g ive th e ins tru cti o n o n that itw as a jury ques t i on w het hert her e w as a s ubs equent hi di ng out or evas i on and, al t hough t enuous , s uch coul d be i nferr ed fr om t he pr oof.
O n appea l , t he def

endantar gues t hatt he evi dence d id nots uppor tan i ns t ruct i on on fl i ghtbeca us e he “ di d notat t empt t o hi de out , evade arr es tor to co n ce al hi m s el f i n t he comm uni t y . I ns t ead, he r etur ned t o hi s hom e, cal l ed hi s gi r l fr i end and t al ked t o t he pol i ce t he nextday

. ”
A fl i ghti ns t ruct i on i s w ar r ant ed w hen “pr oof of ‘ bot h a l eav ing t he s cene of t he d ifficu ltyan d a su b seq u en t hiding o u t, ev asio n , o r co n ce alm en t i n the c o m m u n ity , o r a l eaving o f t he co m m un i t yfor part s unk no w n’” has been present ed a t trial

. S t at e v. B urns, 979 S. W

. 2d 276, 289- 90 ( T enn. 1998) ( quot i ng St at e v. Pay t on, 782 S. W

. 2d 490, 498 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1989) )

. T he St at e can s at i s fyt he s ubs equenthi di ng out , evas i on, orconce al m ent r equi r ement byi nt r oduci ng evi d en ce from w hi ch a j ur ym i ghti nfers uch ac t i on. St at e v. Te r r a n c e W i l k s , No

. W 1 9 9 9

- 0 0 2 7 9

- CCA- R3

- CD, 1 9 9 9 W L 1 0 9 7 8 3 2 , a t* 4 ( Te n n . Cr i m. A p p . Nov

. 2 2 , 1 9 9 9 ) ( c i t i n g Pa y t o n , 7 8 2 S. W

. 2 d a t4 9 0 ; Rog e r s v . St a t e , 4 5 5 S. W

. 2 d 1 8 2, 186- 87 ( T enn. C r i m . A p p . 1 970) )

. “A nycont r adi ct or yevi dence t hats er ves t o r ebutt he [S] t at e’ s pr oof m er el yr ai s es a ques t i on fort he j ur yt o r es ol ve. ” I d. ( ci t i ng H al l v. St at e, 584 S

. W

. 2 d 8 1 9 , 8 2 1 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 9 )).
U pon r evi ew , w e fi r s tnot e t hat t he evi dence cl ear l ys how s a l eavi ng of t he s cene of-12-

t he di ffi cul t y , but evi dence of an evas i on fr om pol i ce i s s om ew hatt enuous . O n t he one ha nd, t he evi dence s how s t hatt he i nci dentoccurr ed on O ct ober26 and t he defen d ant w as not a rre ste d u n til N o v e m b e r 1 , f ro m w h ich , a s h e ld b y th e trial c o u rt, th e ju ryc o u ld p o ten tially i nferevas i on. O n t he ot her hand, t he defe ndantt es t i fi ed thathe s poke w i t h t he pol i ce the day fol l ow i ng t he i nci dentpr es um abl yabouthi s carbei ng t ow ed, w as t ol d he maybe fa ci ng cr i m i nal char ges , butw as nott o ld t o r epor tt o t he pol i ce s t at i on. H ow ever , t he def endant also test ifi ed that h e tho u g h t he w as g o ing to b e arrested af ter the i n cide n t bu t did n o t tu rn h im se lf in . T h e d e f

e n d a n t als o g a v e c o n f

lictin g tes tim o n yc o n c e rn in g w h e th e r h e w e n t to h is h o u se o r to h is g irlfr ien d ’s h o u se f o llo w in g th e in c id e n t.
I ti s ourvi ew t hat , w hi l e fa r fr om di s pos i t i ve, t her e w as ar guabl y enough evi dence of fl i ghtt o fai r l yr ai s e t he i s s ue fort he j ur y ’ s det er m i nat i on. I n anyevent , even i f i tw as er r or f o r th e trial c o u rt to g iv e th e f lig h t in stru c tio n , su c h e rro r w a s h a rm les s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. A s n o ted b yo u r sup rem e c o u rtin S tat e v . S m ith , 8 9 3 S

. W

. 2 d 9 0 8 (T en n . 1 9 9 4 ):

E ven if an i ns t ruct i on on fl i ghts houl d nothave be en gi ven, anyer r or i s notr ever s i bl e. T he C our ti ns t ruct ed t he j ur yt hatw het her t he D efe ndantfl ed w as a ques t i on s ol el yfort hei rdeci s i on, t hatt heyneed noti nferfl i ght , and t hat fl i ghtal one w as i ns uffi ci entt o pr ove gui lt

. T hi s , coupl ed w i t h t he over w hel m i ng pr oof of D efe ndant ’ s gui l t , r ender s anyer r oras t o t he fl i ght in s tr u c tio n h a rm le s s . I d. at918.
J us tas i n Sm i t h, t he t r i al cour ti ns t ruct ed the j ur y t hat w het her t he defe ndantfl ed w as a ques t i on for i t s det erm i nat i on and t hat fl i ght al one w as nots uffi ci entt o fi nd t he def endant gui l t y . T he i ns t ruct i on, rea d as a w h o l e, and i n l i ghtof t he fa ct s of t hi s cas e, r ender s any e rr o r i n g iv in g th e f

lig h t in s tr u c tio n h a rm le s s . I I I . Suff i ci ency of t he E vi dence
T h e d e fe n d a n t ch a llen g e s th e su ffic ien c y o f th e e v id e n c e c o n v ictin g h im o f a ss a u lt. W hen r evi ew i ng a chal l enge t o t he s uf f i ci ency of

t he convi ct i ng evi dence , w e not e t hatt he r el evantques t i on of

t he r evi ew i ng cour ti s “w het her , af t ervi ew i ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ght m o st fav o rab le t o the p rose cu tio n , any r at i onal t r i erof factcoul 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) ( “Fi ndi ngs of gui l t i n cr i m i nal a c tio n s w h e th e r b y th e trial c o u rt o r j u ry sh a ll b e se t a sid e if th e e v id e n c e is in su ffic ien t to supp ortt he fi nd i ng s by the t ri er of fact of g uil t bey on d a reas on able dou bt. ”); S t at e v. E van s, 8 3 8 S

. W

. 2 d 1 8 5 , 1 9 0

- 9 2 ( T e n n . 1 9 9 2 ) ; S t a t e v . An d e r s o n , 8 3 5 S

. W

. 2 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 4 ( T e n n . C r i m.-13-

A pp. 1992)

. 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 ghtand val ue t o be gi ven t he evi dence , and al l factual i s s ues ar e r es ol ved by t he tr ie r of fact
. See St at e v. Pappas , 754 S. W

. 2d 620, 623 ( T enn. 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 favor of

t he t heor y of

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

. 2d 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 on the s tand

. T h u s the tr ia l ju d g e a n 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 ghtand cr edi bi l i t y t o be gi ven 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 al i t y of t he evi dence cannot be 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 enn. 4, 11, 405 S. W

. 2d 768, 771 ( 1966) ( cit ing C arro ll v. St at e, 212 T enn. 464, 370 S. W

. 2d 5 2 3 ( 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 stra 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 ).
A ss a u lt i s d e f

in e d a s th e in ten tio n a l, k n o w in g , o r rec k les s ca u sin g o f b o d ilyin ju ryto a n o t h e r . T e n n . Co d e An n . § 3 9

- 1 3

- 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( 2 0 0 6 )

. I n t he l i ght m o st fav o rab le to t he St at e, t he evi dence s how s t hatt he def endantr epea t edl yt r i ed t o r eac h R ober t s on t he phone and w as admi t t edl yups etatt he vi ct i m ’ s i nt er fer ence . T he vi ct i m t es t i fi ed t hath e and t he defe ndants cr eamed pr ofani t i es ateac h ot herovert he phon e and t hatt he def endantw as fur i ous . T he def

endants how ed up at R ober t s ’ hous e uni nvi t ed, w enti nt o t he gar age, ent er ed t he r es i dence , and at t acke d t he vi ct i m . T he vi ct i m and t he def endantfought , dur i ng w hi ch th e v ic tim w a s h it o n th e h e a d w ith a s k ille t a n d b itte n o n h is f in g e r a n d n e c k

. T he d efen dan targues t hat the S t at e fai l ed to r efute t he ex i st ence o f sel f-defense b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. A p e rso n w h o h a s re a so n a b le f e a r of im m in e n t d a n g e r o f d e a th o r se rio u s b o d ilyin

ju ryis ju stif

ied in u sin g f

o rc e in se lf

-d e f e n se to th e d e g re e n e c e ss a ryto pr ot ectagai ns t t he ot her per s on’ s us e of unl aw ful for ce. See i d. § 39- 11- 611 ( 2006)

. W hen t he def ens e of se l f- defe ns e i s fai r l yr ai s ed byt he evi dence , t he St at e ca r r i es t he bur den of p roo f to n eg ate the d ef

en se b ey o n d a reaso n ab le d o u b t. S ee id. § 3 9 -11 -20 1 (a)(3); B elser, 945 S. W

. 2d at782. H ow ever , w het her a defenda nt act ed i n s el f- defe ns e i s a ques t i on of fa ct fort he j ur yt o det erm i ne. S ee St at e v. G oode, 956 S. W

. 2d 521, 527 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1 9 9 7 ); S ta te v . Iv y , 8 6 8 S .W .2 d 7 2 4 , 7 2 7 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ).A lthough the p r e s e nt e nc e repo rt w as made an e xhibit at the hearing , it was not in cluded in the 2 record on appea l. -14- T he def endant ’ s ar gum ent hi nges s ol el y on t he j ur y ’ s acc r edi t i ng hi s ver s i on of w hat t r ans pi r ed atPol l y R ober t s ’ hous e t hat eveni ng – s om ethi ng t he j ur y di d notdo. T he j ur yw as i ns t ruct ed on t he l aw of s el f- defe ns e, and i t obvi ous l y r ej ect ed t he defe ndant ’ s cl ai m t hatt he v ictim w a s th e a g g re ss o r a n d h e w a s m e re lyd e f e n d in g h im se lf. T h e ju ry , ins tea d , ch o se to a c c re d it th e te s tim o n yo f th e w itn e s s e s f

o r t h e S ta te . T h is w a s its p re ro g a tiv e . I V . Se nt e nc i ng T he def endantl as t l yar gues t hatt he t r i al cour t i m pos ed an exce s s i ve sent ence i n t hat th e c o u rt im p ro p e rly re lied o n g e n e ra l sta tistics a n d d id n o t a d d re ss a ll th e a p p lica b le m i t i gati ng fact ors. A pp el l at e re v iew o f m i sdem eano r s entenci ng i s de novo o n the re co rd w i t h a pr es um pt i on t hatt he t r i al cour t ’s d eter m i nat i ons ar e corr ect

. T enn. C ode A nn. §§ 4 0- 35- 401( d) , - 402( d) ( 2006)

. T hi s pr es um pt i on of corr ectnes s i s condi t i oned upon t he a f f i r ma t i v e s h o wi n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e r e l e v a n t f a c t s , c i r c u ms t a n c e s , and se n ten c in g p rin c ip les . S tate v . A sh b y , 8 2 3 S .W .2 d 1 6 6 , 1 6 9 (T e n n . 1 9 9 1 ). T h e b u rd e n is o n th e a p p e a lin g p a rt yto s h o w t h a t t h e s e n te n c e is im p ro p e r. S e e T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 40 -35-401 (d) , S entenci ng C om m i ssi on C m t s. T h e tr ia l c o u rt is a f

f o rd e d c o n s id e ra b le la titu d e in m is d e m e a n o r s e n te n c in g . S e e , e .g ., St a t e v . J o h n s o n , 1 5 S. W

. 3 d 5 1 5 , 5 1 8 ( Te n n . Cr i m. App

. 1 9 9 9 )

. W h e n i m pos i ng a m isd e m e a n o r se n ten c e , the trial c o u rt is n o t re q u ire d to c o n d u c t a se n ten c in g h e a rin g , b u t it m us taff or d t he par t i es a r eas onabl e oppor tuni t yt o addr es s t he l engt h and mannerof s er vi ce of t he s ent ence . T enn. C ode A nn. § 40- 35- 302( a)

. M or eover , t he t r i al cour ti s notr equi r ed t o pl ace s peci fi c fi ndi ngs on t he r ecor d, St at e v. T r out m an, 979 S. W

. 2 d 2 7 1 , 274 ( T enn. 1998) , but m us t cons i der t he pri nci pl es of s ent enci ng and t he appr opr i at e enha ncementand m i t i gat i ng fac t or s i n det er m i ni ng t he per cent age of t he s ent ence to b e served i n actual co n fin em en t. T en n . C o d e A n n . § 4 0 -35 -30 2 (d).
A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he cour thear d t he ar gum ent s fr om t he par t i es and r ece i ved t he pr es ent ence r epor t

. T he cour tobs er ved, i n l ooki ng at t he fac t s of t he cas e, t hat i t di d not 2 bel i eve the def

endantact ed under pr ovocat i on. T he cour tr evi ew ed the def endant ’ s cr i m i nal r ecor d, w hi ch i ncl uded, among ot hert hi ngs , convi ct i ons foras s aul tand aggr avat ed cr i m i nal t r es pas s and not ed t hathe had r ece nt l yvi ol at ed an or derof pr ot ect i on. T he cour tconcl uded t hatbeca us e of “ the number of t i m es he’ s been c onvi ct ed and pl ace d on pr obat i on and t he vi ol at i ons of pr obat i on, . . . a pr opers ent ence i s el even mont hs / t w ent y - ni ne day s [. ] ”Th e d e f e n d ant t e s t i f

i e d at tr i a l th at h e h a d a d e gr e e i n b i o c h e mi s try , b ut it cam e out at th e 3 sentenc inghearingthat he did no t hav e a degree. -15- I n addr es s i ng w het hert o pl ace t he def endant on pr obat i on, t he cour tcons i der ed t he need f ordet er r ence as evi dence d by t he s t at i s t i cs offe r ed byt he St at e. T he courtal s o found t hatot herfac t or s i ndi cat i ve of a need f ordeterrence as out l i ned i n St at e v. H ooper , 29 S. W

. 3d 1, 10- 12 ( T enn. 2000) , m i l it at ed aga i ns tt he gr antof pr obat i on, namel yt hatt he d e f e n d a n t’s c rim e w a s th e re su lt o f in ten tio n a l co n d u c t a n d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t h a d p re v io u sly engage d i n cr i m i nal conduct of t he same t ype as t he pr es entoffe ns e. T he cour tal s o l ooked at t he natur e and ci r cumst ance s of t he offe ns e i n agai n not i ng t hat t her e w as no pr ovocat i on – that“[t he d efen dan t ] w ent there w ith t he spec i fi c i ntentt o att ack [ t he v i ct i m ] oratl east c o n f ro n t h im , a n d h e c o u ld h a v e s ta y e d a w a y . H e c o u ld h a v e ju s t le f t it a lo n e , b u t h e d id n ’t .”
W i t h regard t o the defen dan t ’s po t enti al for r ehab i l i t a tio n , th e cou rtw as m ost c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e d e f

e n d a n t h a d l i e d u n d e r o a t h a b o u t h a v i n g a d e g r e e i n b i o c h e m i s t r y. 3 T h e c o u rto b serv ed that it d id n o t se e a n ym it igation ev iden ce an d n o ted, “F ran k ly , I do n ’t k n o w if h e w a s w o rk in g o r n o t. I do n ’t k n o w if I c o u ld b e liev e a n y th in g [ h e ] h a d to sa yin the p ast. ” C it ing S tat e v . Jen k ins, 73 3 S

. W

. 2 d 5 2 8 , 5 3 5 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ), the c o u rt not ed t hati tcoul d d en y p rob at i on bas ed on unt rut hful nes s al one. T he cour tconcl uded by d e n y in g th e d e f

e n d a n t p ro b a tio n o r sp lit c o n f in e m e n t a n d o rd e re d th a t h e se rv e h is te rm in jail.
A s s t at ed above , t he de fendantar gues t hatt he t r i al cour ti m pos ed an e xces s i ve sent ence b ecause i t i m properl y rel i ed on evi den ce of gen eral st at i st i cs and f

ai l ed to add res s al l of t he appl i cabl e mi t i gat i ng fac t or s . W it h reg ar d t o t he s t at i s t i cs , t he def endantar gued t hatt he r el evanc y w as ques t i onabl e i n t hatt heyr efl ect ed t he number of cha r ges r athert han convi ct i ons and di d not s how how t he i m pos i t i on of a pa r t i cul ars ent ence w oul d aff ectt he num berof vi ol entcr i m es . W e not e thatt he H oopercour tdid n o tes t abl i s h r i gor ous g u idelines fo r t h e u se o f stati sti cs in p rov ing a ne ed fo r d eterren ce . Instea d , the H o o p er c o u rt sta ted : U s e of s t at i s t i cs m ay be hel pful i n es t abl i s hi ng t he i ncr eas i ng l evel of t he par t i cul arcr i m e i n t he comm uni t y , j ur i s di ct i on, ori n t he s t at e. W e do not r equ ir e such e vi dence , t hough, and t es t i m onybys om eone w i t h s peci al k n o w led g e o f

th e lev e l o f

a p a rticu lar c rim e w ill g e n e ra llyb e su f f icie n t to e s ta b lis h th e p re s e n c e o f th is f a c to r. 2 9 S .W .3 d a t 1 1 (in ter n a l c itatio n o m itt e d ). T h e sta tistics su b m itt e d b y th e S tate a p p a re n tlyWe gle an thi s in f ormat i onfr om th e tr ans c r i ptof th e se nt e nc i ng h e ar i ng. 4 -16- s h o w e d t h e p r e v a l e n c e o f c h a r g e d v i o l e n to f

f e n s e s i n t h e c r i m i n a l c o u r t s o f S h e l b y C o u n t y, 4
w hi ch i s ar guabl yhel pful i n es t abl i s hi ng t he l evel of t he cr i m e i n t he comm uni t y . I n any ev en t, t he pr eval ence of t he offe ns e i n t he comm uni t y i s j us t one of t he H ooperfa ctors i nd i cat i ve o f a ne ed fo r det err ence, and t he tr i a l c o u rt h e re fo un d tw o ad dit i on al fact ors. M or eover , t he nee d fordet er r ence i s butone of the cons i der at i ons fordeny i ng pr obat i on, and th e tr ia l c o u rt b a s e d its d e c is io n o n a n u m b e r o f o th e r c o n s id e ra tio n s . W i t h regard t o the m i t i gati ng fact ors, w e no t e t hat al t ho ug h the cou rtdid not address al l of t he miti g ati ng fac t or s ar gued byt he def endantone- by

- one, i ti s appar entfr om t he r e c o r d t h a tt h e c o u r tc o n s i d e r e d t h e f a c t o r s a n d f

o u n d n o n e t o b e a p p l i c a b l e . M o r e o v e r , we not e t hatt he appl i cat i on of s om e of t he fac t or s pr offe r ed by t he defe ndant w as cont i ngenton a c c re d iti n g th e d e f

e n d a n t’s v e rsio n o f e v e n ts. W e a re n o t p e rsu a d e d th a t th e trial c o u rt, i n s ent enci ng t he def

endantt o el even mont hs , t w ent y - n ine d ay s and deny i ng pr obat i on, e x c e e d e d th e w id e la titu d e o f f le x ib ility th a t is a f

f o rd e d in m is d e m e a n o r s e n te n c in g . It i s n ot i nd i cat ed o n the j ud gm ent w hat per centage of the sent ence the def end ant m ust s er ve bef or e bei ng el i gi bl e forcons i derat i on forw or k r el eas e, fur l ough, t rus t ys t atus , and re late d re h a b ili tativ e p ro g ra m s. S e e T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 4 0 -3 5 -3 0 2 (d ). S in c e th e trial c o u rt, a tt h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , d e t e r mi n e d t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e wa s t o b e s e r v e d a ts i x t yp e r c e n t , we re m a n d f o r e n tryo f

a c o rre c ted ju d g m e n t re f lec tin g th a t f

a c t.
CO NC L US I ON
B as ed on t he for egoi ng aut hor i t i es and r eas oni ng, w e aff i r m t he j udgm entof t he t r i al cour tand r emand forent r yof a c or r ect ed j udgm ent r efl ect i ng t hat the defe ndant i s t o s er ve s i xt yper centof hi s s ent ence .

_________________________________ AL AN E

. GL E NN, J UDGE