State of Tennessee v. Jaylon Hatch

12/03/2024

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs October 1, 2024

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAYLON HATCH

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

Nos. 21-00250, 21-00645 James Jones, Jr., Judge

No. W2023-01764-CCA-R3-CD

The Defendant, Jaylon Hatch, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of

attempted premeditated first degree murder, a Class A felony; aggravated assault in

concert with two or more persons, a Class B felony; reckless endangerment by

discharging a firearm into a habitation, a Class C felony; and employing a firearm during

the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202 (first

degree murder), 39-13-102 (Supp. 2019) (subsequently amended) (aggravated assault),

39-13-103 (Supp. 2019) (reckless endangerment), 39-17-1324 (Supp. 2019)

(subsequently amended) (employing a firearm). The trial court imposed an effective

twenty-one-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is

insufficient to establish that he was the perpetrator of the conviction offenses because

they are based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. We affirm the

judgments of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed

ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which TIMOTHY

L. EASTER and MATTHEW J. WILSON, JJ., joined.

Rosalind E. Brown (on appeal); and Jim Hale (at trial), Memphis, Tennessee, for the

appellant, Jaylon Hatch.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; John Cerisano, Assistant Attorney

General; Steve Mulroy, District Attorney General; and Forrest M. Edwards and Chris

Lareau, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

The Defendant’s convictions relate to two drive-by shootings at a Memphis home

during which several victims were shot and injured. The Defendant was tried jointly with

codefendants Jerrell Anderson and Mitchell Hopkins. Codefendant Jerry Anderson,

Jerrell Anderson’s brother, testified for the State at the joint trial.

Leslie Kendrix testified that on June 8, 2020, she and her family and friends were

at her home celebrating her daughter’s birthday when she heard gunshots outside. She

said that there were “too many” gunshots to count and that the shooters “shot up the

whole house.” According to Ms. Kendrix, approximately ten bullets entered the house,

many leaving holes in the walls and breaking windows. Her doorbell audio and video

camera recorded the incident, and the recording was received as an exhibit and played for

the jury. Ms. Kendrix testified that although she was not outside during this first

shooting, she saw two or three men shooting guns on the recording.

The doorbell recording showed Ms. Kendrix’s house’s front porch and the road in

front of her house. Her ex-husband and others stood by a car in the driveway and her

son’s friend stood on the porch. Two cars, one black and the other silver, drove in front

of the house and stopped. After someone from one of the cars yelled, several men

stepped out of the cars and began shooting toward the house.

Ms. Kendrix testified that, after the 3:08 p.m. shooting, the police conducted a

brief investigation and left. Later that day, at 6:40 p.m., people were on her porch, and

Ms. Kendrix was sweeping up broken glass and debris. Ms. Kendrix said she left the

porch to go inside at which time she heard more gunshots and called 9-1-1. During the

second shooting, Ms. Kendrix’s mother was shot in the hip, her two-year-old

granddaughter was shot in the leg, and her cousin was shot in the leg. The doorbell

recording of the second shooting incident was received as an exhibit and played for the

jury.

The doorbell recording of the second shooting showed several people leaving Ms.

Kendrix’s front porch, and Ms. Kendrix’s mother sweeping the porch. Multiple gunshots

were fired, Ms. Kendrix’s mother fell to the ground, and Ms. Kendrix’s two-year-old

granddaughter ran across the porch to the front door. The recording showed Ms.

Kendrix’s daughter crying out, “My baby, my baby f------ hit.” Ms. Kendrix’s cousin,

who was armed, indicated that he had been shot, and several people attended to Ms.

Kendrix’s mother on the porch.

Lola Bolden testified that she was Ms. Kendrix’s mother, that she was at Ms.

Kendrix’s house at the time of both shootings, and that she was age seventy at the time.

-2-

Ms. Bolden said that, during the first shooting, bullets entered the room where she and a

grandchild were sitting and cracked a front window. She stated that, during the second

shooting, she was shot in the leg. This fractured her femur and pierced a vein and

arteries, which required surgery and a rod in her leg. She noted that her injuries required

her to use a cane to walk.

David Freeman testified that he was present during the two shootings on June 8,

2020. Mr. Freeman said that he was working on his car in the driveway when the first

shooting occurred. Two cars appeared in front of the house: a black Mercedes G Wagon

and a silver Mercedes sedan. Mr. Freeman said that he ran toward the back of the house

when he heard gunshots and that Lakendrick Stewart was shot. According to Mr.

Freeman, two men were in each car. Mr. Freeman said he was on the front porch when

the second shooting occurred.

Jessie Murrell testified that he received a telephone call on June 8, 2020, in which

he learned about the shooting at his cousin’s house. Mr. Murrell, who had a handgun

license, said he armed himself and went to Ms. Kendrix’s house around 5:00 p.m. Once

there, he noticed a silver Mercedes sedan parked along the street. He said that, while

helping a family member load chairs into a car, he heard gunshots from the corner of the

street, where he saw five shooters. Mr. Murrell said that he returned gunfire and was shot

twice in the leg. Mr. Murrell stated that he received medical treatment for the gunshots,

that he had residual pain from the injuries, and that the bullets remained in his leg. On

cross-examination, Mr. Murrell acknowledged that he could not identify the shooters.

Alexis Monger testified that she was Ms. Kendrix’s daughter and that she and her

two-year-old daughter were at Ms. Kendrix’s house during the shootings. According to

Ms. Monger, she and her daughter were asleep in a back bedroom at the time of the first

shooting, but her daughter was on the front porch at the time of the second shooting, was

shot in her left leg, and was grazed by a bullet on her right leg. Ms. Monger said that she

drove her daughter to the hospital for medical treatment.

Memphis Police Department (MPD) Officer Henry Hearns testified that he

responded to both shootings, photographed the scene, and preserved and collected

evidence. Officer Hearns’s photographs, sketch of the area, and crime scene report were

received as exhibits and shown to the jury. The photographs showed the location of the

cartridge casings on the street in front of and beside Ms. Kendrix’s house. One

photograph showed that eight bullets entered Ms. Kendrix’s house through a front porch

window. Other photographs showed that a bullet struck Ms. Kendrix’s television and

that several bullets embedded in interior walls. Officer Hearns said that bullets also

pierced a window and struck a bathroom medicine cabinet at the house next door.

Officer Hearns said that he collected over ninety cartridge casings that had been fired

from four different firearms.

-3-

MPD Sergeant Keith Phillips testified that he responded to the first shooting and

later retrieved surveillance recordings from a nearby convenience market which showed

cars matching the cars identified in the first shooting as they drove away from Ms.

Kendrix’s neighborhood. According to Sergeant Phillips, immediately before the second

shooting, a convenience market recording showed a silver sedan and a black sedan circle

the block near Ms. Kendrix’s house and stop at a corner where men got out of the cars

and began walking toward Ms. Kendrix’s home. Sergeant Phillips also obtained Cherry

Creek Apartments surveillance recordings from which he identified codefendant Jerry

Anderson and his brother, codefendant Jerrell Anderson, as initial suspects. The

apartment complex surveillance recordings were received as an exhibit and played for the

jury.

A Cherry Creek Apartments surveillance recording, from a camera facing the

apartment parking lot, showed that a silver Mercedes sedan, a black sedan, and a black

Mercedes G Wagon pulled into the parking lot after the first shooting and that five men,

some carrying weapons, walked into the apartment complex. A different surveillance

camera showed that the same five men entered an apartment. One of the men wore a

white, flat-brimmed baseball hat with the bill turned to the side. Several hours later and

before the second shooting, a surveillance camera recorded eight men leaving the

apartment, and another camera recorded the men walking to the parking lot, including the

man who wore the white baseball hat. Four cars left the parking lot: two silver Mercedes

sedans, a black Mercedes G Wagon, and a black sedan.

Sergeant Phillips testified that surveillance recordings from the apartment complex

showed that the armed men returned from the first shooting and entered an apartment

occupied by someone called “Dome-Shot.” Sergeant Phillips identified codefendant

Jerry Anderson and codefendant Jerrell Anderson on the recordings, both of whom were

arrested on September 9, 2020. Sergeant Phillips said that he talked to Jerry Anderson,

that Jerry Anderson identified the Defendant and codefendant Hopkins as additional

suspects, and that he did not record his interview with Jerry Anderson. Sergeant Phillips

corroborated the Defendant’s identity by comparing the Defendant’s MPD database

photograph with the apartment complex surveillance recording of the men returning from

the parking lot after the first shooting.

On September 9, 2020, Sergeant Phillips interviewed codefendant Jerrell

Anderson, and a video recording of the interview was received as an exhibit and played

for the jury. During the interview, Jerrell Anderson acknowledged that he drove a silver

Mercedes sedan to the first shooting, that Darrin Wilson was with him, and that he fired

shots at Ms. Kendrix’s house. Jerrell Anderson said that a black Mercedes G Wagon

followed his car but that he did not know who was in it. Jerrell Anderson stated that he

went to Cherry Creek Apartments after the first shooting. He acknowledged that the

-4-

apartment complex’s surveillance recordings showed him and the other shooters and that

the recordings reflected the cars they drove to Ms. Kendrix’s house during both

shootings. Jerrell Anderson confirmed that he returned to Ms. Kendrix’s house in the

silver Mercedes sedan for the second shooting, that he was alone in the car, and that he

did not fire a weapon. According to Jerrell Anderson, there were three individuals at the

first shooting and eight at the second. Jerrell Anderson said that the shooters were

targeting “Big Jook.” Jerrell Anderson did not know the present location of the guns

used during the shootings and concluded his interview by saying, “I didn’t shoot that

little girl or the grandma.”

On cross-examination, Sergeant Phillips testified that codefendant Jerrell

Anderson initially said that his brother, codefendant Jerry Anderson, was not involved in

the second shooting, but later implicated Jerry Anderson in that shooting. Sergeant

Phillips said he corroborated that Jerrell Anderson was present and fired a weapon at the

first shooting, that the shooters rode in a silver Mercedes sedan and a black Mercedes G

Wagon, and that the shooters returned with their weapons to Dome-Shot’s apartment.

According to Sergeant Phillips, although the apartment surveillance recording showed

that eight individuals left the apartment complex prior to the second shooting, the

doorbell recording of the second shooting showed that only three men fired weapons.

Sergeant Phillips confirmed that Jerry Anderson and Jerrell Anderson admitted they were

at the second shooting and that they provided information regarding others present.

Shelby County District Attorney General’s Office technical litigation analyst

Rebecca Gross testified that she created a video presentation of the events before and

after each shooting by synthesizing the surveillance recordings, 9-1-1 calls, maps of the

area, and other evidence. Ms. Gross’s video presentation was received as an exhibit and

played for the jury. In a video detailing the first shooting, Ms. Gross overlaid

photographs of the Defendant and codefendant Hopkins onto the Cherry Creek

Apartments surveillance recorded images of the shooters entering the apartment complex

from the parking lot. The video presentation showed an interactive map depicting the

location of the shooters’ cars immediately before and after the shootings. On cross-

examination, Ms. Gross acknowledged that she could not confirm the exact route the

shooters took from Ms. Kendrix’s house to Cherry Creek Apartments after the shootings.

Codefendant Jerry Anderson testified that he was thirty-one years old and that

codefendant Jerrell Anderson was his brother. Jerry Anderson said that he had graduated

from Arkansas Tech University with a degree in mass communications and that he was a

music producer. Jerry Anderson acknowledged that, as a result of his participation in the

second shooting, he was charged with attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault,

reckless endangerment, and employing a firearm during a dangerous felony. On October

6, 2020, Jerry Anderson and his attorney spoke to Sergeant Phillips regarding Jerry

-5-

Anderson’s involvement in the shootings. Jerry Anderson admitted that he initially “told

many lies” but confirmed that he was one of the shooters at the second shooting.

Codefendant Jerry Anderson testified that although he was not present for the first

shooting, his brother telephoned that day saying he had been in a “shootout” and “slid on

somebody,” meaning his brother was involved in a drive-by shooting. Jerry Anderson

said that, immediately after talking to his brother about the first shooting, he met his

brother and the men from the first shooting at the Cherry Creek Apartments parking lot.

Watching the surveillance recording of the Cherry Creek Apartments parking lot, Jerry

Anderson identified his black sedan and his brother’s silver Mercedes sedan pulling into

the parking lot after the first shooting. On that recording, Jerry Anderson identified

himself, his brother, codefendant Hopkins, Mr. Wilson, and the Defendant, who wore a

white, flat-brimmed baseball hat with the bill turned to the side. Jerry Anderson said that

either Mr. Wilson or the Defendant was in his brother’s car during the first shooting.

Jerry Anderson also identified the Defendant in a Facebook photograph in which the

Defendant wore a similar flat-brimmed baseball hat with the bill turned to the side. Jerry

Anderson said that he met the Defendant for the first time on the day of the shootings.

Codefendant Jerry Anderson testified that, after the first shooting, he entered

Dome-Shot’s apartment with four other men, including the Defendant, and met other men

there. According to Jerry Anderson, several men were engaged in firearm maintenance

and were smoking “weed.” Jerry Anderson said that he did not know why his brother

wanted to go back to Ms. Kendrix’s house and noted that the Defendant “got his gun

ready” and said, “I want to go back [to Ms. Kendrix’s house]” and “B----, I’m ready to

go.” Jerry Anderson confirmed that only the black Mercedes sedan and the silver

Mercedes sedan returned for the second shooting. Jerry Anderson said that he assumed

the Defendant rode with his brother because he saw the Defendant standing beside his

brother’s car before they left to commit the second shooting. Jerry Anderson said he saw

several armed men standing in front of Ms. Kendrix’s house, that he and his brother

parked their cars at the corner of the block, and that “everyone” got out of the cars and

began shooting toward Ms. Kendrix’s house.

Codefendant Jerry Anderson testified that he initially told police officers that he

had not driven to the second shooting, that he had not fired a weapon, and that he had not

known any of the other shooters. Jerry Anderson, however, identified himself, Mr.

Wilson, and codefendants Jerrell Anderson and Hopkins on the doorbell camera

recording of the second shooting. According to Jerry Anderson, the recording did not

show the Defendant because he stood on a different corner. Jerry Anderson said the

Defendant and codefendant Hopkins had assault rifles. Jerry Anderson stated that he, Mr.

Wilson, the Defendant, and codefendants Jerrell Anderson and Hopkins returned briefly

to Dome-Shot’s apartment after the second shooting. Jerry Anderson confirmed that he

-6-

saw the Defendant “a couple of times” after the shootings but that they did not discuss the

shootings.

On cross-examination, codefendant Jerry Anderson testified that he initially lied to

Sergeant Phillips about not knowing who was involved in the shootings and that he was

certain that the Defendant fired a weapon during the second shooting. Jerry Anderson

confirmed that the shootings regarded drug money owed to his brother and that no one

planned to kill anyone. Jerry Anderson reiterated that the prosecutor did not promise to

grant him leniency and acknowledged that he had provided the names of the shooters that

the State might not have had otherwise. Jerry Anderson reiterated that, while at Dome-

Shot’s apartment before the second shooting, the Defendant said that his gun had

“jammed” during the first shooting. Jerry Anderson also acknowledged that his

testimony was necessary to convict the Defendant and codefendant Hopkins.

The defense elected not to offer any proof.

Upon this evidence, the jury convicted the Defendant of attempted first degree

premeditated murder, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and employing a

firearm during a dangerous felony, and he received an effective twenty-one-year

sentence. This appeal followed.

Analysis

The Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to identify him as a

participant in the first shooting because codefendant Jerry Anderson’s identification was

not corroborated by other proof and was not reliable. The State counters that the

evidence is sufficient to corroborate the Defendant’s identification and participation in

the first shooting and that the jury properly weighed Jerry Anderson’s credibility. We

agree with the State.

In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, the standard of review is “whether,

after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier

of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); see State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514,

521 (Tenn. 2007). The State is “afforded the strongest legitimate view of the evidence

and all reasonable inferences” from that evidence. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d at 521. The

appellate courts do not “reweigh or reevaluate the evidence,” and questions regarding

“the credibility of witnesses [and] the weight and value to be given the evidence . . . are

resolved by the trier of fact.” State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997); see

State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984).

-7-

“A crime may be established by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a

combination of the two.” State v. Hall, 976 S.W.2d 121, 140 (Tenn. 1998); see State v.

Sutton, 166 S.W.3d 686, 691 (Tenn. 2005). “The standard of review ‘is the same whether

the conviction is based upon direct or circumstantial evidence.’” State v. Dorantes, 331

S.W.3d 370, 379 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265, 275 (Tenn.

2009)).

“Criminal responsibility, while not a separate crime, is an alternative theory under

which the State may establish guilt based upon the conduct of another.” State v.

Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 386 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting State v. Lemacks, 996 S.W.2d

166, 170 (Tenn. 1999)).

A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct

of another, if:

...

(2) Acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, or

to benefit in the proceeds or results of the offense, the person solicits,

directs, aids, or attempts to aid another person to commit the offense[.]

T.C.A. § 39-11-402(2) (2018). For a defendant to be convicted of a crime under the

theory of criminal responsibility, the “evidence must establish that the defendant in some

way knowingly and voluntarily shared in the criminal intent of the crime and promoted

its commission.” Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d at 386; see State v. Maxey, 898 S.W.2d 756, 757

(Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).

The record reflects that codefendant Jerry Anderson was an accomplice to the

second shooting. Our supreme court recently abolished the common law requirement for

corroborative testimony of accomplices but did so on a prospective basis. State v.

Thomas, 687 S.W.3d 223, 242-43 (Tenn. 2024). At the time the Thomas opinion was

decided, this appeal was pending. Accordingly, in this case, we apply the common law

rule that requires that “a conviction may not be based solely upon the uncorroborated

testimony of an accomplice.” See, e.g., State v. Shaw, 37 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tenn. 2001);

State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 803 (Tenn. 1994); Monts v. State, 379 S.W.2d 34, 43

(Tenn. 1964), overruled on other grounds by State v. Collier, 411 S.W.3d 886 (Tenn.

2013). In order for accomplice testimony to be adequately corroborated:

[T]here must be some fact testified to, entirely independent of the

accomplice’s testimony, which, taken by itself, leads to the inference, not

only that a crime has been committed, but also that the defendant is

implicated in it; and this independent corroborative testimony must also

-8-

include some fact establishing the defendant’s identity. This corroborative

evidence may be direct or entirely circumstantial, and it need not be

adequate, in and of itself, to support a conviction; it is sufficient to meet the

requirements of the rule if it fairly and legitimately tends to connect the

defendant with the commission of the crime charged. It is not necessary

that the corroboration extend to every part of the accomplice’s evidence.

Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d at 803 (quoting State v. Gaylor, 862 S.W.2d 546, 552 (Tenn. Crim.

App. 1992) (citations omitted)); see Shaw, 37 S.W.3d at 903.

Although the Defendant stated in his brief that the issue for review is “whether the

trial court erred in denying [his] motion for a new trial as the jury verdict was against the

weight of the evidence[,]” he only provided argument regarding whether accomplice

testimony identifying the Defendant was corroborated by other evidence. We will direct

our analysis accordingly. See T.R.A.P. 27(a)(7), Tenn. R. Ct. Crim. App. 10(b). Further,

an appellate challenge to the weight of the evidence is properly addressed by a

sufficiency of the evidence analysis. See State v. Burlison, 868 S.W.2d 713, 719 (Tenn.

Crim. App. 1993) (stating that after a trial court has discharged its obligation as thirteenth

juror and approved the verdict, an appellate court must credit the testimony of the State’s

witnesses and resolve evidentiary conflicts in the State’s favor).

Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the record reflects the Defendant

participated in the first shooting. Mr. Freeman and codefendant Jerrell Anderson

identified the cars driven to the first shooting as a silver Mercedes sedan and a black

Mercedes G Wagon. The convenience store recording showed a silver Mercedes sedan

and a black Mercedes G Wagon leaving Ms. Kendrix’s neighborhood after the first

shooting. Surveillance recordings from Cherry Creek Apartments showed a silver

Mercedes sedan and a black Mercedes G Wagon returning to the apartment complex after

the first shooting. The apartment surveillance recordings also showed five men, some

visibly carrying guns, returning to the apartment complex after the first shooting and

entering Dome-Shot’s apartment. Sergeant Phillips identified Jerrell Anderson and

codefendant Jerry Anderson in those recordings. Sergeant Phillips also compared the

images of the men on the apartment recording with the Defendant’s photograph from the

MPD database and confirmed that the Defendant was one of the men shown on the

recording entering the apartment complex from the parking lot after the first shooting.

Codefendant Jerry Anderson testified that he was not present for the first shooting

but met the other men in the apartment parking lot after the first shooting and that he

walked to Dome-Shot’s apartment with them. From the Cherry Creek Apartment

surveillance recordings after the first shooting, Jerry Anderson identified the Defendant

as the man who wore a white, flat-brimmed baseball hat with the bill turned sideways and

-9-

said that the Defendant was one of the men at Dome-Shot’s apartment. According to

Jerry Anderson, while at Dome-Shot’s apartment after the first shooting, the Defendant

said, “I want to go back [to Ms. Kendrix’s house]” and “B----, I’m ready to go.” The jury

was shown the Cherry Creek Apartments recordings and the Defendant’s Facebook

profile photograph, which showed the Defendant wearing a flat-brimmed baseball hat

with the bill turned sideways.

“Only slight circumstances are required to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony”

as the evidence need only “tend[] to connect the defendant with the commission of the

crime charged.” State v. Fusco, 404 S.W.3d 504, 525 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012) (citation

omitted); Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d at 803; see State v. Lacorious Tyquez Fuller, No. M2023-

00694-CCA-R3-CD, 2024 WL 4235619, at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 19, 2024)

(officers’ identification of the defendant from a video recording corroborated the

accomplices’ identification of the defendant) (perm. app. filed Nov. 18, 2024). In the

present case, the trial court determined that codefendant Jerry Anderson was an

accomplice and instructed the jury that his testimony must be corroborated by

independent evidence. The jury had the opportunity to compare the Defendant’s

appearance at the trial with the recordings from Cherry Creek Apartments and to hear

Sergeant Phillips’s testimony. Sergeant Phillips testified that he corroborated the

Defendant’s identity by comparing the Defendant’s MPD photograph with the Cherry

Creek Apartments’ recording of the shooters returning to the apartments after the first

shooting. The evidence in this case is sufficient to corroborate Jerry Anderson’s

identification of the Defendant.

The Defendant also argues that inconsistencies in codefendant Jerry Anderson’s

statements to law enforcement “raised serious questions about his credibility” at the trial.

However, the jury had the opportunity to weigh his credibility after hearing his testimony

and defense counsel’s cross-examination of him. This court does not reweigh evidence

and questions regarding the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given the

evidence are resolved by the trier of fact. See Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 659.

We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions.

The Defendant is not entitled to relief on this basis.

In consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, the judgments of the

trial court are affirmed.

_____________________________________

ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JUDGE

-10-