possession of cocaine for resale and carrying a dangerous weapon. The defendant contends that the trial court should not have applied enhancement factor (10) because a risk to human life is inherent in murder. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-114(10). The state contends that the trial court appropriately applied this factor because one or more of the bullets fired by the defendant could have hit the passenger. Although factor (10) is inherent in every homicide case relative to the victim, the trial court may consider this factor when the defendant endangers the lives of people other than the victim. See State v. Ruane, 912 S.W.2d 766, 784 (Tenn.Crim.App.1995); State v. Johnson, 909 S.W.2d 461, 464 n. 1 (Tenn.Crim.App.1995); see also State v. Butler, 900 S.W.2d 305, 314 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the defendant fired three shots
holding that factor 10 should not be applied when the victim is the only one at risk holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction holding that no one factor is determinative and the weakness of  one factor may be overborne by the strength of the others holding that the exclusions should be applied holding that no one factor is determinative and the weakness of one factor may be overborne by the strength of the others