### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE Fe br ua ry 15, 200 5 S es sio n

ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v

. A U GU ST IN E J OH N LO P EZ , III

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2001-B-1192 Walte r K urtz, Judge

No. M2003- 02307-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Jun e 28, 2005

The Appe llant, Aug ustine J ohn L opez, I I I
, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of first deg ree felony murder a nd theft of property over $1000 a nd subsequently rec eived c oncurr ent sentenc es of life imprisonment and five y ear s for the respe ctive convictions. On appe al, L opez raises four issues for our revie w: (1) whe ther the evidenc e is sufficie nt to support the convictions: (2) whe ther the tria l
court e rre d in allowing te stimony by a police off icer conce rning fing erprint evidence ; (3) whe ther the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in e xclu din g the he ars a y state me nts of a wi tne ss wh ic h ind ic a ted he r po ssi ble invol vement in the murde r; and (4) whether the trial court’s sequential jury instruction was er

ror. After revie w of the r ecor d, the judg ments of conviction ar e af firmed.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nts of the Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and T HOMAS T. W O O D A LL , J ., joined.

N i c h o l a s D

. H ar e , N a s h v i l l e , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e A p p e l l a n t , A u g u s t i n e J o h n Lo p e z , III

.

Pa ul G. Sum me rs , At torne y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . B le ds oe , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Victor S

. J ohnson I I I
, District Attorney Gene ral; Deborah Housel and Lisa Nay lor, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

During the eve ning of November 29, 2000, the Appellant a nd a co- defe ndant, Fr ed Eug ene Thompson, Jr., enter ed the Na shville home of the victim, Wil liam Burton Cra ig, a nd brutally beat him to death. Additionally , a television, a VC R

, c lothin g a ndoth e r p e rs on a l pr op e rt y of the vic tim
,W e no te tha t M s. C ro w is also re fer re d to in t h e tra n sc rip t a s J a n C ro w V e a c h , Ja n n e lle C ro w , an d J a n n e lle 1

C ro w B e e c h

.
-2- and a 1997 Me rcury

Marquis, which be longe d to the victim’s mother, wer e stolen fr om the residenc e.

Th e fi ft y -t

hr e e -y e ar- oldvic ti m res ideda t 63 5 H ard ing Pla c e in N a sh vil le wi th h is e lde rl y mother, who owne d the re sidence

. Howeve r, due to health concer ns, the victim’s mother had move d from her residenc e appr ox imately four we eks b ef

ore the victim’s death. I n the wee ks prior to the murder, Jan Crow and th e v i ct im developed a close re lationship, with C row moving into the 1

v ic ti m’ s h o me

. D u r in g th is p e r io d
, th e v ic ti m a n d Cr o w e n c o u n te r e d p r o b le ms with Cr o w ’ s e xhusband, Clay ton “Rabbit” Ve ach, w hom Crow ref err ed to as a “ stalker.” Three day s prior to the murder, the victim threw Crow’s c lothes out of the home.

The testimony

at trial established tha t t h e Appe llant met J an Crow f or the fir st tim e on November

22, 2000, seven day s prior to the murder of the victim. Acc ording to Crow, the Appellant ide nti fi e d h ims e lf

to h e r a s “ Tr a vis ” wh e n s he me t hi m a t a c on ve nie nc e stor e in East N a sh vil le wher e she ha d g one to purc hase illicit drug s. She approa ched the Ap p el l an t , and he g ot into the victim’s red Miata, which C row wa s driving. T he two then dr ove behind a building whe re Crow and the Appellant e ng ag ed in sex. Crow ag ree d to ta k e the Appellant to the victim’s home wher e she was staying to g et money for the dr

ugs

. E n route to Ha

rding Place, the c ar be came stuck on the

ra ilr oa d tr a c ks , a ndthe tw o we re un able to mov e it. Whil e the y we re g on e fo r he lp, the c ar w a s h it by a tra in. The Appe llant and Crow we re the n driven to 635 Ha rding Place by a friend. When the police arrived at the victim’s home to g et a r eport of the incident, the Appe llant hid in the victim’s be dr oo m. C ro w r e turne d to the sc e ne of the a c c ide nt w ith the of

fi c e r, bu t the Ap pe lla nt s ta y e d w ith the victim.

During this ti me the Appe llant used the victim’s phone to ca ll his g irlfriend, Priscilla F loy d,

a t he r m oth e r’ s r e sid e nc e in M ur fr e e sb or o. Sub se qu e ntl y , th e Ap pel lan t andthe vic tim dr ov e to Murfre esboro in the victim’s mother’ s ca r an d p i ck ed up Floy d befor e re turning to the victim’s home. Upon their arriva l back at the vi ctim’s house, t hey found t hat C row had also returne d to the residenc e fr om the acc ident scene . The Appellant and F loy d watche d television in the den, and the Ap pe lla nt, a ft e r g e tti ng pe rm iss ion fr om the vic tim , w e nt i nto the kit c he n to g e t so me thi ng to e a t. He ope ned the cabine ts se arc hing for food, holding up sever al cans to se e if F loy d wanted some thing to eat. While there, F loy d testified that she hear d Crow talking to some one on the tele phone, y elling and scr eaming at the other party . The victim also g ot on the phon e, an d threats were made. Eventually , the Appellant a nd Floy d went to sle ep in the spare bedroom, and the next morning the vic tim too k th e m ho me . F loy d n e ve r s a w the vic tim a g a in, bu t the Ap pe lla nt c a lle d h e r s ome tim e afte r Thanksg iving a nd told her that he ha d done something bad and mig ht be g oing to jail for a long time.

O n t h e e v e n i n g o f

t h e h o m i c i d e , t h e v i c t i m m a d e a p h o n e c a l l t o h i s l o n g

- t i m e f r i e n d
, C h e r yl Flatt. While the two wer e eng ag ed in conve rsation, someone came to the victim’s door , whom he-3-

identified to Fla tt a s one of “Jan’s friends.” Flatt stated that the victim was “ conce rned” and aske d he r t o c a ll h im b a c k in te n mi nu te s. Ca lli ng ba c k, F la tt w a s a ble to g e t on ly

a bu sy sig na l.

Also on this da te, the victim spoke with a nother friend, Todd Irvine, a nd the two made pla ns to get toge ther late r in the eve ning. B eca use the victim had friends over at the time, Irvine wa s supposed to call the victim late r to se t up a time. Irvine tried ca lling seve ral times that eve ning, but the lin e wa s c on tin uo us ly bu sy , d e sp ite c a ll wa iti ng on the lin e

. Ar ou nd 9:0 0 p .m. , I rv ine dr ov e to the victim’s residenc e at 635 Har d i n g Place. He immediately noticed that the ba ck g ate a nd the

s l i d i n g gl as s d o o r t o t h e h o u s e we re o p en , wh i ch wa s h i gh l y u n u s u al b ec au s e t h e v i ct i mh ad a d o g. Irvine e ntere d the hom e, calling for t he victim

. He searc hed the house and found tha t the victim’s bedroom wa s “demolished.” E ventually , Irvine found the victim’s badly beate n body on the kitchen floor with his hands and f eet bound with toaster

and ca n opener

cords. I rvine c alled his wife, w ho immediately

called 911.

Severa l office rs with the Metro Na shville Pol ice Depa rtment responde d to the addre ss and be g a n p ro c e ssi ng the c ri me sc e ne . N e ar the vic tim ’s he a d, of fi c e rs dis c ov e re d a

c a n o f V ie tti c hil i, which wa s dented a nd coate d with blood. Nea r t he victim ’s feet, a dented and bloody can of Sweet Sue c hic ke n a nddu mpl ing s w a s fou nd

. Of fi c e r B la c kw oo d pro c e sse d the tw o c a ns fo r f ing e rp ri nts , and a rig ht thumb print was lifted fr om the can of chicke n and dumplings. O ffice rs also collec ted

sever al blood samples and f inge rprints throug hout the home. I t was conf irmed that the late nt print found on the c an belong ed to t h e Ap p el l an t. Co-defe ndant Thompson’s prints wer e found on the telephone in the den and on the bathroom doorwa y

. Autopsy results indicated that the cause of the vic tim ’s de a th wa s mu lti ple blu nt f or c e inj ur ie s to the he a d a ndne c k, wi th h is n e c k b e ing e sse nti a lly br ok e n. Ad dit ion a lly , th e re we re mul tip le abr a sio ns a ndc on tus ion s o n the v ict im’ s f a c e , h a nd s, shoulder, and arms. During the investigation, it was discovere d that a television, a V CR, clothing of the victim, and a

white Merc ury

Marquis belong ing to the vic tim’s mother were missing.

Thompson, the co-de fenda nt, was known to fr equent the F our Ace s Ba r on Dicke rson Road. On e of the ba rt e nd e rs wo rking on No ve mbe r 29, 20 00 , te sti fi e d th a t sh e sa w T ho mps on a ndSte lla Mae Mitche ll, another ba

rtende r, at the ba

r that eve ning in a

white four- door car . Additionally , the barte nder state d that Thompson was in the bar try ing to sell clothes, a tele vision, and a VCR. The next evening, N ovember

30, 2000, the stolen ca

r wa s discovere d parke d next door to t he F our Ac es Ba r. Testimony

established that the car had been parked there since 10:00 or 10:30 p.m. the prior

e v e n i n g

. U p o n p r o c e s s i n g t h e c ar , s e v e r a l p r i n t s w e r e l i f t e d b u t w e r e n o t i d e n t i f

i ab l e

. A d d i t i o n a l l y, blo odwa s f

ou ndon the dr ive r’ s se a t a ndon the ste e ri ng wh e e l.

The investig ation initiallyfocuse d on Clay ton Veac h; however , he wa s eventua lly clea red of any involvement by J an C row, who g ave police a stateme nt that she was with Ve ach the entire night of the murder . Howeve r, Ve ach te stified that Crow l ef t the trailer

for a pproxi mately

three hours to pick up a tele vision set f rom his boss, who lived a couple of blocks from the victim, ar riving ba c k a t th e tr a ile r w ith a

te le vis ion a nda

ro ll o f o ne hu nd re d d oll ar b ills. Cr ow e ve ntu a lly tol d police about “ Travis” and provide d his description to a police ske tch artist.-4-

On Dec ember

22, 2000, an off

icer with the Metro Police Depa rtment noticed two c ars pa rked in an alley

known for dr

ug activity . The office r subsequently was informed that one of the c ars wa s stolen. Th e A p p e ll a n t w a s in th e s e c o n d c ar a n d s p o k e w ith th e o f f ic e r , g iv in g h is n a me a s Gary L arry L opez. The off

icer eventua lly

asce rtained the Appellant’s true identity and that a wa

rra nt was outstanding f

or his arr est for the ft.

On Dec ember

23, Thompson was intervi ew ed bypolice and de nied any knowledg e of the

c ri me s. He a sse rt e d that he didno t kn ow the Ap pe lla nt o r the vic tim a ndthat he ha d n e ve r b e e n to the Har ding Plac e addr ess. Howe ver, at trial Thompson testified that he did meet the A ppellant on the nig ht of the murder

. Acc ording to T hompson, he was riding around w ith an acqua intance, a nd they stopped at a Ma

pco station. At this point, “J eff ” and the Appellant, whom Thompson had ne ver

me t, g ot i nto the c ar. Th e iss ue of mari jua na c a me up , a ndthe Ap pe lla nt s ta te d h e kn e w w he re so me could be pur chase d. After driving to the victim’s r esidenc e, the Appellant we nt into the house but was told to come ba ck later . The g roup re turned to the victim’s house a round 8:00 p.m.

Thompson testified that the Appellant e ntere d the house al o n e, leaving the three other individuals in t he ca

r. The A ppellant was in the house for a pproxi mately

thirty minutes before
mot ion ing Th omp so n in to the hou se . U po n e nte ri ng the ho us e , T ho mps on we nt t o th e ba thr oo m, and, while he was using the bathroom, he hear d arg uing. When he emer g ed from the bathroom, he

s aw t h e vi ct i m an d t h e Ap p el l an t fi gh t i n g i n t h e de n ar ea

. I n re s p o n s e t o T h o m p s o n ’s q u es t i o n i n g, the Appellant s h o u t ed
, “[ H]e owes me.” The two e ventually fell into the kitchen a

rea , and Thompson saw the Appe llant with a can in his hand beating the victim. The strug g led continued, and the Appe llant eventually g rabbe d a sec ond can a nd hit the victim in t he back of the head. Thompson stated that there was no time for him to int erve ne and stop the f ight.

At this point Thompson looked out the window and sa w that the other two men had lef

t. He stated th a t h e r e tu r n e d to th e d e n a n d p ic k e d u p th e p h o n e to c a ll f o r h e lp

. H o w e v e r, he w as interrupted by

t h e Ap p ellant who told him to put t he phone dow n and off ere d to give him a ride. Thompson testified that the Appellant took a te levision and a VCR with him when they left in the white ca r that wa s at the victim’s reside nce. T hey then drove to t h e Four Ac es B ar w here the Appellant tossed a w allet into the dumpster.

An inm at e, Fr ed Hu n t er , en co u n t er ed t h e A p p el l an tan d T h o m p s o n d u ri n g t h ei r i n ca rc er at ion at the Criminal J ustice Center . Acc ording to Hunter, the Appellant approa ched him a nd indicated that Thompson was g oing to kill the Appellant be cause he had g otten Thompson involved i n a

mur de r c ha

rg e

. Ac c or din g to Hu nte r, the Ap pe lla nt sa id that Th omp so n did no t r e a lly kil l th e vic tim and that the victim was killed with a “ can of pork and be ans or something .”

Th e Ap pe lla nt a ndTh omp so n w e re joi ntl y ind ic te d a ndtr ie d o n c ha rg e s o f p re me dit a te d f

ir st deg ree murder a nd
, i n t h e al t ernative, felony murder, a s well as for

theft of pr operty

over $1000. Af te r h e ari ng the e vid e nc e pr e se nte d, the jury c on vic te d b oth the Ap pe lla nt a nd Th omp so n of fi rs t deg ree felony

murder a n d t h eft over $1000. The A ppellant was subse quently sentenc ed to a term of lif e imp ri so nme nt fo r the mur de r co nv ic tio n an d a term of fiv e y e ars fo r the the ft c on vic tio n, to-5-

be ser ved conc urre ntly

. The trial court denied the Appellant’s motion for new trial on Aug ust 21, 2003, with this appeal following

.

Ana lys is

On app e a l, the Ap pe lla nt h a s r a ise d f ou r i ssu e s f

or ou r re vie w: (1 ) w he the r the e vid e nc e is

su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt the c on vic tio ns ; (2 ) wh e the r the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in a llo wi ng a

po lic e of fi c e r t o testify t h at t h e orie ntation of a fing erprint on an object may reve al how the item wa s held; (3) whether the trial court erre d by

excluding a he arsa y

s t at ement made by

a witness indicating her possible involvement in the crime; and (4) whether the court corr ectly instructed the jury that they must unanimouslyacquit the Appe llant of the g reater offe nse befor e considering any lesser inc luded offe nses.

I. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence
First, the Appe llant asserts that the evidence prese nted at trial was insufficient to support the convictions for both felony murder and theft. Specific ally , he ar g ues that his convictions are “base d almost ex clusively

upon the testimony

of his codef

endant.” Whil e acknowledg ing that the decision of whether to a ccr edit the co-de fenda nt’s testimony was a question for the jury , he asse rts that the evidenc e pre sented wa s insufficient to justify a finding of g uilt bey ond a re asonable doubt.

I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h i s i s s u e , w e ap p l y t h e ru l e t h a t w h e r e t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i de nc e is

c ha lle ng e d, the re le va nt q ue sti on fo r the re vie wi ng c ou rt is “ wh e the r, a ft e r vie wi ng the e vid e nc e in
t h e l i g ht most favorable to the [S tate], any r a ti o n a l trie r o f f a c t c o u ld h a v e f

o u n d th e essential el em ents of the c rime bey ond a re asonable doubt.” J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 4 3 U

. S

. 3 0 7
, 3 1 9
, 9 9 S. Ct. 27 81 , 2 78 9 ( 19 79 ); se e als o Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e) . Moreove r, t h e S t at e is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence an d al l rea sonable infe renc es which ma y be dra wn there from. Sta te v . H

ar ris
, 83 9 S.W. 2d 54
, 75 (T e nn

. 19 92 ). Al l qu e sti on s inv olv ing the c re dib ili ty of witnesses, the weig ht and value to be given the e vidence , and all fa ctual issues ar e re solved by the trier of fac t. State v. Pappas , 754 S.W .2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987) . This court will not

rew eig h or reevalua te t he evidence pr esente d. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978)

. “A g uiltyverdic t by

the jury
, ap p ro v ed by

the trial judg e, ac cre dits the testimonyof the witnesses for the State and re solves all conflicts in fa vor of the the ory of the State.” State v. Grac e , 49 3 S.W.2 d 474 , 476 (T e nn . 197 3)

. A jury c on vic tio n re mov e s the pr e su mpt ion of inn oc e nc e wi th which a de fenda nt is ini tially cloake d and repla ces it with one of g uilt, so t hat on appe al, a c onvicted defe ndant has the bur den of de monstrating that the evide n ce is insufficient. Sta te v . Tu gg le , 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982) . These r ules are applicable to finding s of g uilt predicate d upon direc t evidenc e, cir cumstantial evidenc e, or a combination of both. Sta te v . M att he ws , 805 S.W .2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)

. Although a

conviction may

be base d entirely

upon circ umstantial evidence
, Du c ha c v . S tat e , 505 S.W .2d 237, 241 (Tenn. 1974), in such ca ses, the fa cts must be “so cle arly interwove n and-6-

connec ted that the fing er of g uilt is pointed unerringly at the Def endant and the De fenda nt alone.” Sta t e v

. Black
, 8 1 5 S

. W

. 2 d 1 6 6
, 1 7 5 (T en n

. 1 9 9 1 ) ( ci t i n g State v. Dunc an , 698 S.W .2d 63 (Tenn. 1985)). How ever , as in the ca se of dire ct evidence, the weig ht to be g iven circ umstantial evidence and “[t] he infere nces to be draw n from such evidenc e, and the e x tent to which the cir cumstance s are consistent with guilt and inconsistent w ith innoce nce, are questions primarily for the jury .” Ma ra ble

v . S tat e , 313 S.W .2d 451, 457 (Tenn. 1958) (citations omitted).

The Appe llant was convic ted of fir st deg ree felony murder, w hich is defined in pe rtinent part by Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d se c tio n 39 -1 3- 20 2( a )( 2) (2 00 3) a s a “ kil lin g of a no the r c omm itt e d in the pe rp e tr a tio n o f o r atte mpt to p e rp e tr a te a ny

. . . theft. ” Und e r the fe lon y mur de r r ule , it is immaterial whe ther the killing of the victim by the def endant wa s intentional or acc idental, as the requisite intent for f

elony murder is the de fenda nt’s intent to commit the underly ing f elony . Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13- 202(b). A person commits theft of property if, with intent to deprive the owne r of property , the person knowing ly obtains or exercises control over the property without the owner’ s eff ective c onsent. Tenn. Code A nn. § 39-14-103 ( 2003).

Th e pro of a t tr ia l, w hil e no t ov e rw he lmi ng , w a s su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

the c on vic tio ns

. Thompson’s testimonyplace d the Appellant at t he scene of the m urder , and Thompson stated that it was the Appe llant who beat the victim to death with two cans of food, while shouting “ he owe s me.” Additionally , Thompson testified that the Appellant took the tele vision, the VCR, and the ca r, thus, providing pr oof of the the ft. We acknow l ed ge t hat had this bee n the only proof pr esente d ag ainst the Appellant, it would have been insufficient, as a conviction m ay not be base d solely upon the uncor roborated testimony

of an a ccomplice

. State v. Bane , 57 S.W .3d 411, 419 (Tenn. 2001)

. Her e, however, sufficient corroborating e vidence was pre sented to the jury

. See State v . Bigbee , 885 S.W .2d 797, 803 (Tenn. 1994)

. The proof also established that the A ppellant met the victim throug h J an Crow and that he ha d v isi te d th e vic tim ’s ho me on at le a st o ne pr ior oc c a sio n, e ve n s pe nd ing the nig ht the re . F la tt te sti fi e d th a t w he n s ome on e kn oc ke d o n t he vi cti m’ s door on the nig ht o f the mur de r, the vic tim identified the pe rson as “Jan’s friend.” Additionally
, proof was prese nted which established that the fing erprint found on the can of chic ken and dumpling s, an instrument used to produc e d ea t h
, was the Appellant’ s rig ht thumb print. The can wa s found on the floor, dented and bloody

. The jury was fre e to re ject the Appe llant’s assertion that the print was placed there earlier when he was sea rching for f ood. Moreove r, the Appe llant’s statement to Priscilla F loy d, that he had done something bad and would be g oing to jail for awhile, a nd the statement to inmate Fred H unter, that he had gotten Thompson in v o lv e d in a

mu r d e r c h ar g e f o r w h ic h T h o mp s o n d idn o t c o mm it
, ar e c o rr o b o r ative admissions of the Appellant’s involvement in the c rimes. Fr o m these fa cts, a jury could have conclude d that the Appellant was guilty of fe lony murder a nd theft. Any

inconsistencies or que stions of cr edibilitywer e plac ed bef ore the jury

. Questions of credibility of t he witnesses are for the jury to determine. Sta te v . S he ffi e ld , 6 76 S.W. 2d 54 2, 54 7 ( Te nn . 1 98 4) ; Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d at 835. Af t er revie wing the fa cts in the light most favor able to the State, we conclude that the evidenc e prese nted at trial is leg ally sufficie nt to support the convictions. This issue is without merit.-7-

II. F ing e r pr int

Te st im ony

Se c on d, the Ap pe lla nt a

rg ue s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt

e rr e d in pe rm itt ing Of

fi c e r B la c kw oo d to g ive “expert testimony ” reg arding how the orie ntation of a fing erprint may reve al how the item wa s he ld. He c on te nd s th a t th e te sti mon y a s g ive n w a s e xtre mel y pre jud ic ia l to his c a se in tha t it

“ un fa ir ly inf lue nc e d th e jury

to c on c lud e that th e on ly way [the Ap pe lla nt] c ou ld hav e left hi s f i n g e rp r i n to n t h e S w e e t S u e c h i c k e n a n d d u m p l i n g s c a n w a s b y h o l d i n g t h e c a n i n a p ar t i c u l ar

w a y, which furthere d the State’s theory .”

Th e sp e c if

ic te sti mon y

ob je c te d to by

the Ap pe lla nt i s a s f

oll ow s:
Then y ou have orientation. When y ou find a fi n ger print on an objec t, a lot

o f t i m es that fing erprint will help to - - it shows relationship. I n other wor ds, how
y ou g rab something . I f y ou’re g rabbing something this way or y ou’re g rabbing

so me thi ng thi s w a y . A ndwe c a n te ll tha t thr ou g h the do c ume ntatio n, the pr int its e lf

a ndthe do c ume ntatio n th a t w e do wh e n w e re c or d a fi ng e rp ri nt.

For an example, if y ou have a piece of g lass and it’s in a window. Now then, if this glass is broke n and we find say like four finge rs on t he outside nea r the broke n edg e and one fing er, the thumb on the inside of wher e that g lass - - right on this edg e, then of c ourse y ou can pr esume that that print wa s left on that object af ter it was broken be cause it’s almost phy sically impossibl e unless y ou went ar ound on one side and tried to turn y our hand in such an orientation and ra n around to the othe r side and touch it like th i s. So also, the relationship that y ou have, in other words, the fre quency and the sty le of touching that y ou would do to something. I f y ou’re g oing to be ag g ressive w ith s o m et h i n g and handle it more and more and more , then y ou

wo uldha nd le it d if

fe re ntl y tha n y ou wo ulddo a

c a su a l to uc h to a n o bje c t.

At th is p o in t, th e A p p e ll a n t’ s tria l c o u n s e l o b je c te d
, s tati n g “ I th in k h e ’ s b o r d e r in g on expert testimony in this reg ard and I don’t know if he’s talking a bout - - I think speculation from without an expert and f

oundation.”

The proof established that Offic er B lackwood w as a twe nty -six y ear veter an with the Metro Police Depa

rtment and that he had wor ked in t he “I D l atent lab” proce ssing finge rprint evidenc e for the last five y ear s. The off icer testified that he ha d proce ssed hundre ds of crime scene s, had attende d the F B I Ac a de my

pr og ra m f

or fi ng e rp ri nt i de nti fi cat io n, and ha d a tte nd e d a t le a st thirty sc ho ols inv olv ing c ri me sc e ne in ves ti gati on. T he Sta te arg ue d th a t O ff ic e r B la c kw oo d w a s “ ve ry we ll qualified to e x plain to the jury how he g oes about lifting prints and w hat he looks for as fa r as spa tial rela tionship.” The trial court ag ree d.

The a dmission of evidence is entrusted to the sound discretion of the t rial court, and a tr ial court’s r uling on e vidence will be disturbed onl y upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Sta te

v . D uB os e , 9 5 3 S

. W .2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997) . A trial court’s exercise of discretion will not be-8-

reve rsed on a

ppeal unless the court “a

pplied an incor

rec t leg al standar d, or re ache d a dec ision which is ag ainst logic or re asoning that cause d an injustice to the party complaining .” State v. Shuck , 953 S.W .2d 662, 669 (Tenn. 1997)

.

F ir st, we wou ld not e that th e Ap pe lla nt o ff e re d n o o bje c tio n w he n B la c kw oo d te sti fi e d in detail re garding other proc esses involved in his work, including the collec tion and storing of evidenc e, the pr ocess of dusting for fing erprints, the ty pes of objec ts from which the be st prints can be de ve lop e d, a ndthe va

ri ou s p os sib le re a so ns on e c a nn ot o bta in u sa ble pr int s. Mo re ov e r, in this

case , th e o ff

i ce r’ s testimonyreg arding the manner in which an objec t is held did not require the qualifica tion of

an expert. See Tenn. R. Evid. 702. Our rule s of evidenc e permit opini on testimony of a la y witness when it is (1) rationally based on the perc eption of the witness a nd (2) the opinion is helpful to a clear understanding of t he witness’s testim ony on the determination of a fa ct in issue. Tenn. R. Evid. 701. Our r eview of the offic er’ s testimonydemonstrates tha t hi s t es t i mony was rationally based upon his experienc e and tr aining and wa s helpful in unde rstanding an issue of fa ct in the case . This issue is without merit.

III . Ex c lusi on o f Te st im ony
Next, the Appellant contends that the tria l court er red by excluding a statement made by J an Crow to her e x -husband, Clayton Veac h, whi ch p o tentially implicated her

in the murder of

the victim. Specifically , he asse rts that proper application of Chambers v. Mississippi , 410 U.S. 284, 93 S. Ct . 103 8 (1 9 73), and Sta te v . B ro wn , 2 9 S. W.3 d 4 27 (T e nn . 2 00 0) , s ho uldha ve re su lte d in admission of the testimony

. As part of his defe nse, co-defe ndant Thom pson attempted to elicit testimonyfrom Clayton Vea ch reg arding a st atement made t o him by J an C row on the m orning following the murder . I n a jury -out hea

ring
, Vea ch testi fied that he became awar e of the m urder when he rec eived messa g es on his cell phone fr om his da u gh t er

. He testified that af ter he laid the phone down in the se at, Crow picked up the phone , hear d the m essag es, and “ ca lled somebody and then she said that he wa s killed with a can of chili and he wasn’t supposed to have gotten killed . . . .” The State objec ted, ar g uing that the s tatement was inadmissible hear say

. Co-defe ndant’s counsel arg ued that the statement wa s admissible under the e x cited uttera nce e x ception.

Th e tr ia l c ou rt

ru le d th a t th e te sti mon y

wa s n ot a dmi ssi ble , f

ind ing that:

There ’s no hea

rsay rule he re. The defe nse did not la y fo u n dation as an e x cited
utteranc e. Can’t use the dec laration ag ainst interest bec ause the re’ s obviouslyan available witness. We hear d from her

.

. . . .
Now, could I

use State v. Brown and Chambers v. Mississippi to override the

e vid e nc e ru le s, y e s, bu t th a t w ou ld b e on ly un de r c ir c ums ta nc e s in wh ic h th is-9-

evidenc e wa s rea lly

cruc ial and pointed the f

inge r at someone else. You know, let’s

even acc redit this stateme nt, he was supposed to g et killed. All that te lls me is that she mig ht have be en involved in this theft murder. It doesn’t indicate tha t these two d ef en d an t s are not guilty . That’s a ll it t ells me. So I ’m not g oing to use S tate v. Br own or Cha mb e rs v . Miss iss ipp i under the se circ umstances to over ride the

e vid e nc e ru le s.
The Appe llant’s counsel noted f or the re cord tha t he joined in t h e o b j ec t i o n to the court’s r

uling deny ing a dmission of the hearsay statement.

I nitially , we note that the Appellant has waived this issue by failing to include it in his m otion for ne w trial. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(e ). None theless, we e lect re view.

Essentially , the Appellant is ar g uing that he was de prived of his c on s t i t u t i onal rig ht to be

a ff or de d a me a nin g fu l op po rtun ity

to p re se nt a

c omp le te de fe ns e by

e sta bli sh i n g Jan C ro w’ s p os sib le inv olv e me nt i n th e mur de r a ndthe ft of the vic tim

. I t ha s lo ng be e n r e c og nize d b y the c ou rt s o f this
state t hat an acc used is entitled to present e vidence implicating other s in the crime. Sta te v . P owe rs , 101 S.W .3d 383, 394 (Tenn. 2003) . A def endant’ s rig ht to present a de fe n s e, whi ch includes the rig ht to present witnesses f avora ble to the def

ense, is g uar an t ee d by

the Six th Amendment to the United States Constit ution and the Due Proc ess Clause of the Fourte enth Amendment to the United States Consti tution. See U.S. C O N S T

. amend. VI
, XI V. “I n the exercise of this rig ht, the acc used, as is require d of the State, must comply with established rules of

proce dure a nd evidenc e desig ned to assure both fa irness and reliability in the asce rtainment of g uilt and innocence .” Cha mb e rs , 410 U.S. at 302, 93 S. Ct. at 1049. Howeve r, there are instances whe re othe rwise inadmissible evidenc e must be admitted in or der to pr otect the c onstitut ional rig hts of the ac cused. Br own , 29 S.W .3d at 43 6. Ou r s up re me c ou rt

ha s st a te d:

The fac ts of eac h case must be considere d car efully to de termine whether the

con s t i t u t i o n al right to prese nt a def ense ha s been violate d by the exclusion of the

ev id e n c e . Gene rally , the ana ly sis should consider whethe r: (1) the excluded evidenc e is critical to the def

ense; (2) the evidenc e bear s sufficie nt indicia of reliability ; and (3 ) the int e re st s up po rt ing e xclu sio n o f the e vid e nc e is s ub sta nti a lly imp orta nt.

Id

. at 4 3 3 -3 4 (c i t i n g Chamber s, 410 U.S. at 298-301, 93 S. Ct. at 1047-49). This court must consider and balance the principles of rele vance and hearsay under the Tenne ssee Rul es of Evide nce w ith the ri g hts of the a c c us e d to c on fr on t a nd c ro ss- e xami ne wi tne sse s a ndto c a ll w itn e sse s in his de fe ns e when de termining whether the evidenc e is admissible.

I t is undisputed that the statement in que stion wa s hear say

. We ag ree with the trial court that neither the excited utteranc e nor the decla ration ag ains t i n t er est exception applies. We note that

w h i l e t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h tt o p r e s e n ta d e f e n s e h a s b e e n h e l d t o “ t ru m p ” t h e ru l e a g a i n s th e ar s a y,

a ft e r c are fu l c on sid e ratio n, we c on c lud e that th e state me nt i s n ot a dmi ssi ble un de r the fa c ts o f this

case . I n our view, the exclusion of the statement made by J an Crow did not deprive the Appellant-10-

of his ri gh t to present a

defe nse. As the tria l court found, the sta tement was not c ritical to the defe nse. Even if

we a ssumed the statement to be true, it, at most, would have only implicated J an Crow as a n acc omplice or c o-conspirator. No thing in the state ment neg ated the g reater of the

e vid e nc e which est abl is he d th a t th e Ap pe lla nt c omm itt e d th e c ri me s. Th us , w e are un able to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the he arsa y testimony

.

IV . J ur y I nst r uc ti ons

L ast, t h e Appe llant asserts that the jury instruction with reg ard to lesse r included of fense s violated his rig hts under both the United States and Tenne ssee Constitutions beca use it impli ed that the j u ry “m u s t u nanimously acquit of the highe r cha

rg e bef ore be ing a llowed to move to a lesser char g e.” T he Appe llant contends that the instruction “e ncoura g ed the jury to convict . . . [him ] of first deg ree murder[,] . . . int erf ere d with its choice of lesser included off

enses[,] . . . [ and] deprived [him ] of his ri g ht t o a

jury tr ia l on the le sse r of

fe ns e s. ” Th e tr ia l c ou rt ins truc te d the jury a s f oll ow s:

I f y ou , th e jury , u na nim ou sly de te rm ine that th e Sta te ha s p ro ve n the de fe nd a nts , Aug ustine L o pez, I I I

and Fred Thompson, Junior guilty of fe lony murder by

proof bey ond a rea sonable doubt the n y ou will find the defe ndants g uiltyof fe lony murder

a ndma rk the ve rd ic t f

or m a c c or din g ly

mov e on to c ou nt tw o. On the oth e r h a nd , if
y ou find the defe ndants, Aug ustine L opez, II I and Fr ed Thompson not gu i l t yof felony murder or if y ou have rea sonable doubt there of, then y our ver dict must be not g uil ty a s to thi s o ff

e ns e a ndne xt pr oc e e d to det e rm ine the ir g uil t or inn oc e nc e a s to the lesser included off

ense of second de g ree murder.

The c o u r t th e n p r o c e e d e d to in s tr u c t th e ju r y o n th e le s s e r in c lu d e d o f f e n s e s o f s e c o n d deg ree murder, r eckle ss homicide, and fa cilitation.

This court has r epeatedly held that seque ntial jury instructions, l i k e the one prese nted for revie w in this case, a

re pr oper. State v. Raines
, 882 S.W .2d 376, 381-82 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1994);

se e als o S tat e v . H

ar ris
, 94 7 S.W. 2d15 6, 17 5- 76 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 96 ); Sta te v. Mc Pherson , 882 S.W. 2d 36 5, 37 5- 76 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 94 ); Sta te v . R uth e rfo rd , 876 S.W .2d 118, 119-20 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1993); State v. Stanley E arl Cates
, No. E2003-02648-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App.

a t Kno xvill e , De c . 2 0, 20 04 ); State v. Joe A. Gallaher , N o. E2 00 1- 01 87 6- CCA -R 3- CD (T e nn . Crim. App. at Knoxvill e, June 25, 2003). We find these dec isions controlling upon the issue. The tr ial court instructe d t h e jury

on all proper

lesser inc luded offe nses of the c harg e of f elony murder a s

re qu ir e d b y

statut e . T he ins truc tio n d id n ot p re c lud e the jury fr om c on sid e ri ng the le sse r c ha rg e s. This issue is without merit.-11- CO NC LU SION

Ba sed upon the for eg oing, the judgme n t s of convic tion for first deg ree felony murder a nd theft of prope rty

over $1000 a

re a ffirme d.

___________________________________

DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE