With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". review unless the defendant requested the particular lesser-included offense at issue. See Demonbreun v. Bell, 226 S.W.3d 321, 326 (Tenn. 2007). To avoid this unintended outcome, we determine that the legislature did not intend for the Court of Criminal Appeals’ reasoning to apply. 4 , We note that pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 4(E)(1), this case was designated as "Not for Citation,” Accordingly, while this opinion has no precedential value, it is nonetheless illustrative of the premise that Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-18-110' has been subject to differing interpretations. 5 . See, e.g., Pylant v. State, 263 S.W.3d 854, 871 n.26 (Tenn. 2008) (maintaining that the standard of review for hearsay issues is abuse of discretion); State v. Dotson, 254 S.W.3d 378, 392 (Tenn. 2008) (<HOLDING>); Perry v. State, No. W2011-01818-CCA-R3-PC,

A: holding that questions concerning the admissibility of hearsay evidence rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and this court will not interfere in the absence of abuse appearing on the face of the record
B: holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not bedisturbed absent an abuse of discretion
C: holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion
D: holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion
A.