ÿWPCý  CΫ©ÕPÊJE™÷Úˆü-ÐèM¹ý„¡™TÝöhß\Gí6<µe3Úhõ;€-Þ4ób†­¥èÙf2¥÷©Ø̹À;HXí©ï]Œ>í`/hèjº,‘r­ún½¿Ö©/‹TjiŸ•—ævTX ëÍT$¦*se ‰·x­¢ÙåyÖLïÃv”ƒRªz’ÞfÄ2‰ÆØ=¡Á I"ïõI Gc—kOb‘ƒ®"¨ °*l1žÎ•oöå8‰X&üÑR—žÛVó«©*oˆý̨W[rÕÔåfZÆ23¦ï§:Âû¯ÍÑ`! ü¿'x8ë¿õ·ÙÊVîkwÔ3·|&å%,•fZ®êÙIƒÓUØ1”Âw/æ5?.Y‰øU¦«vÊìì`ÂO=íñŽLrånÑÉ*¹Ð…Á\r-؈×ba³ñ“ÚKCG$íÏpØh.à—ð]ã:äÌ]£·[;„®}Ìøˆd\4(Usd…PU\³ññW%±¶ 7‡jâ°TÛsÌäo÷³¨g¨º†ÔÒ=ZÞ6»…€ý`^Òí-qNÈ”D½|G"8šGŽôÊ÷5à‘ÁŒapÀìçÜפӮïÍØïM` ²­—g$“=Æ„¦Jœgp|•G)# >UNI %— 0(U:Åbÿw@4G[j 1mr 0cßBU:DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD AQ~ÆÏ 0D• 0DÙ 0D  D/a B B­ D3Ê ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6HPBXLBÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,Ù¹6 AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- ×EØDÙÚÛUÜÝÞDßÓ€é n~<$3|xé #,e37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;³º$´´Ô2,eÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à øÝ ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X+ XXXÔÔ€•åXX+ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X+ X•åÔÐ  ÐÌJuly€21,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,–ûyAZ‹"Arial Regular !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd&&&&'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñßñ›ñßñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Š»ÂŠXXÔÔ€ŠŠŠŠ»ÂÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€QÅXXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñéññßñßr€ (<,(j 8` `€€@E f ` ttx0X` ð ærßñßññéññéññéññéññßñ›ñßññéññéññéññéñ›ñéññéññéññéñ›ñéññéññéññéñ›ñéññéñ›ñéñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌñéñœßt€ (>.*jx§ÿº` `€€@EÇ ` ttx0ÿP ð š tß›ñéñAT€JACKSONÌÌMAY€SESSION,€1999ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€à À àà  à)à p àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9707„CC„00265Ð  À Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àó óÐ ¸  Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,ò òà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ °  Ѐ€à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àFAYETTE€COUNTYÐ ¨  ÐV.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€€Ð    Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ ø˜  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHON.€JON€KERRY€BLACKWOOD,€ó óÐ ð  Ðò òÓ  ÓCOREY€LEMONT€POWELL,à À àà  à)€€€€€€€ó óà p àò òJUDGEó óÐ èˆ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò òà  à)ó óà p àÐ à€ Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À àò òà  à)à p à(FIRST€DEGREE€MURDER)Ð Øx Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð ¸X ÐÌò òMICHAEL€E.€SCHOLLà h àà À àà  àà p àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ð ¨H Ðó ó200€Jefferson€Avenue,€Suite€202à  àà p àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ   @ ÐMemphis,€TN€38103Ìò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àR.€STEPHEN€JOBE€Ð "0 Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àó óà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ ˆ#( Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òELIZABETH€T.€RICEÐ `(  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àó óDistrict€Attorney€General€Ð X)ø! ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òCHRISTOPHER€MARSHBURNó óÐ H+è!# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à302€Market€Street€Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àSomerville,€TN€38068ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÐ  à7€.09 ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°ÆÛ°ŠŠÔò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠŠ°°ÆÛÔÐ `  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àà ¸ àIn€this€case,€the€Defendant,€Corey€Lemont€Powell,€appeals€as€of€rightÏfrom€the€judgments€of€conviction€for€felony€murder€and€especially€aggravatedÏrobbery.€€Indicted€and€tried€for€felony€murder,€premeditated€first€degree€murder,€andÏespecially€aggravated€robbery,€the€jury,€on€these€counts,€found€him€guilty€of€felonyÏmurder,€second€degree€murder,€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€The€trial€courtÏmerged€the€second€degree€murder€conviction€with€the€felony€murder€and€DefendantÏwas€given€a€life€sentence.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€to€serve€fifteen€(15)€yearsÏfor€the€conviction€of€especially€aggravated€robbery,€concurrent€to€the€sentence€of€lifeÏimprisonment.€€Defendant€presents€nine€(9)€issues€for€appellate€review.€€This€courtÏinitially€affirmed€the€convictions.€€The€Defendant€then€timely€filed€a€Petition€toÏRehear,€which€was€granted.€€The€original€opinion€and€judgment€œwere›€vacated.€€TheÏcourt€ordered€the€trial€court€to€make€certain€findings€of€fact€regarding€DefendantððsÏissue€challenging€admissibility€of€his€confession.€€After€further€briefing€following€theÏtrial€courtððs€supplemental€findings€of€fact,€the€case€was€then€reargued.€€After€reviewÏof€the€entire€record,€briefs€and€arguments€of€counsel,€and€applicable€law,€we€findÏthat€suppression€of€Defendantððs€confession€is€required,€and€we€therefore€reverse€theÏjudgments€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€this€case€for€a€new€trial.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€issues€presented€by€Defendant€are€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 ` à1)à0¸ ` (#` (#àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€Defendantððs€motion€toÐ ä2„)* Ðsuppress€his€statement;Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà8 ` à2)à0¸ ` (#` (#àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€Defendant€access€to€theÐ Ì5l,- Ðresults€of€a€polygraph€test€for€use€as€evidence;Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌœÌÐ ¬9L01 Лà8 ` à3)à0¸ ` (#` (#àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€suppress€evidence€of€œÐ` ¸ (#¸ (# Ðà ` àà ¸ àthe›€murder€weapon€and€the€ballistics€test;ÌÌà8 ` à4)à0¸ ` (#` (#àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€Defendantððs€motionÐ H è Ðregarding€the€striking€of€specific€jurors€and€motion€for€a€changeÏof€venue;Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà8 ` à5)à0¸ ` (#` (#àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€Defendantððs€motion€for€aÐ (È Ðmistrial€due€to€admission€of€evidence€of€Defendantððs€arrest;Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà8 ` à6)à0¸ ` (#` (#àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€admit€testimonyÐ °  Ðregarding€Defendantððs€restricted€access€to€the€telephone€duringÏpolice€questioning;Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà8 ` à7)à0¸ ` (#` (#àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€Defendantððs€motion€forÐ ð  Ða€judgment€of€acquittal;Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà8 ` à8)à0¸ ` (#` (#àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€charge€lesser€includedÐ Øx Ðoffenses€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder;€andÐ ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà8 ` à9)à0¸ ` (#` (#àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€prosecutorial€misconductÐ À` Ðduring€the€trial.Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌÌÌà@-DàòòFactsóóÓÓˆà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ ˜!8 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àBessie€Russell,€wife€of€Don€Russell,€testified€that€he€was€the€owner€andÏoperator€of€Russellððs€Grocery€located€in€Hickory€Wythe,€a€rural€area€of€FayetteÏCounty.€€The€store€had€been€open€since€April€1947.€€In€May€1994,€Don€Russell€wasÏseventy„four€(74)€years€old.€Russell€and€his€wife€lived€next€door€to€the€store,€andÏeach€morning€he€rose€at€5:00€a.m.€to€open€the€store.€€He€went€to€the€store€to€eat€hisÏbreakfast€and€read€the€paper,€then€returned€to€the€house€with€the€newspaper€for€herÏto€read.€€The€store€was€open€from€5:00€a.m.€until€5:30€p.m.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€May€27,€1994,€Mrs.€Russell€awoke€and€discovered€that€her€husbandÏâ âhad€not€yet€returned€with€the€newspaper.€€She€walked€to€the€store€and€found€him€œÐ è6ˆ-/ Ðlying›€on€his€back€in€a€pool€of€blood.€€Mrs.€Russell€called€911,€and€the€victim€wasÏâ âtransported€by€helicopter€to€a€hospital€in€Memphis€where€he€was€pronounced€dead.€ÏShe€noticed€that€the€cigar€box€was€missing€from€the€store€and€estimated€the€amountÏof€money€in€the€box€to€be€between€$800.00€and€$1200.00.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àDr.€OððBrien€Smith€testified€that€he€performed€the€autopsy€of€the€victim.€ÏDr.€Smith€reported€that€the€victim€died€as€a€result€of€a€near€gun€shot€wound€to€theÏhead,€and€he€removed€a€.22€caliber€bullet€fragment€from€the€back€of€the€victimððsÏbrain.€€From€his€examination,€Dr.€Smith€determined€that€the€gun€was€€between€sixÏ(6)€to€twelve€(12)€inches€from€the€victimððs€head€at€the€time€it€was€fired.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àBill€Kelley,€Sheriff€of€Fayette€County,€testified€that€he€led€theÏinvestigation€of€the€victimððs€murder.€€After€arriving€at€Russellððs€Grocery€on€May€27,Ï1994,€at€6:30€a.m.,€Sheriff€Kelley€determined€that€a€cigar€box€containingÏapproximately€$1200.00€had€been€stolen€from€the€store€and€that€there€were€noÏwitnesses€to€the€shooting€of€€the€victim.€€On€June€24,€1994,€Kelley€interrogated€aÏpotential€suspect,€Jerry€Coleman,€but€after€a€brief€investigation,€Coleman€wasÏeliminated€as€a€suspect.€€The€investigation,€in€Sheriff€Kelleyððs€words,€came€to€aÏð ðdead€end.ðð€€Two€years€later,€in€April€1996,€Kelley€discovered€that€the€Defendant€hadÏtold€some€people€within€the€community€that€he€was€responsible€for€the€victimððsÏmurder.€€Also,€the€Defendantððs€nine„shot€.22€caliber€revolver€was€seized€from€himÏby€police€during€the€Mid„South€Fair.€€After€the€revolver€was€recovered€from€theÏMemphis€Police€Department€property€room,€both€the€revolver€and€bullet€fragmentsÏfrom€the€victimððs€brain€were€sent€for€ballistics€testing.€€Ìâ âÐ à7€.0 Ðà ` àà ¸ àKelley€interviewed€the€Defendant€for€the€first€time€on€May€1,€1996,Ïâ âadvising€€him€that€he€was€investigating€the€victimððs€death€and€that€they€hadÏrecovered€the€Defendantððs€pistol.€€After€reading€Defendant€his€constitutional€rights,Ïthe€Defendant€signed€a€waiver€of€these€rights€and€did€not€request€an€attorney€or€hisÏparents€to€be€present€during€the€interview.€€Defendant€denied€any€involvement€inÏeither€the€robbery€or€murder€of€the€victim,€but€did€advise€Kelley€that€Bryant€PowellÏand€Erin€Luckett€were€involved.€€The€Defendant€was€released€following€thatÏinterview.€€After€further€investigation,€the€Defendant€was€again€picked€up€by€theÏpolice€for€questioning€and€was€incarcerated€on€May€3,€1996.€€After€advisingÏDefendant€of€his€rights€for€a€second€time,€Kelley€again€interviewed€the€Defendant,Ïbut€not€until€May€6,€1996.€€Defendant€again€denied€his€involvement€in€the€crime.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€May€7,€1996,€Sheriff€Kelley€was€notified€that€the€Defendant€wantedÏto€speak€with€him.€€After€Defendant€was€advised€of€his€constitutional€rights€andÏsigned€a€waiver€form,€he€again€denied€involvement€in€the€murder€and€implicated€hisÏcousin,€ð ðBig€John,ðð€from€Memphis.€€On€May€8,€1996,€Agent€Scott€Walley€from€theÏTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€came€to€interview€the€Defendant€upon€SheriffÏKelleyððs€request.€€Sheriff€Kelley€verified€that€the€Defendant€was€never€mistreated€orÏpromised€anything€in€exchange€for€his€statement.€€Kelley€also€stated€that€he€wasÏnever€informed€by€either€the€Defendant€or€his€parents€that€they€wanted€or€hadÏretained€an€attorney,€although€Kelley€spoke€with€Defendantððs€parents€several€timesÏthroughout€the€investigation.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAgent€Walley€testified€that€he€advised€Defendant€of€his€constitutionalÏâ ârights.€€During€the€first€portion€of€the€interview,€Defendant€denied€involvement€in€the€œÐ à7€.0 Ðcrime.›€€Following€a€lunch€break,€Defendant€returned€to€the€interview€and€gave€aÏâ âstatement€to€Agent€Walley€in€which€he€admitted€robbing€and€shooting€the€victim.€ÏDefendant€€stated€that€he€entered€Russellððs€Grocery€at€approximately€5:30€a.m.€onÏMay€27,€1994,€with€his€nine„shot€.22€caliber€revolver€in€his€right€front€pocket.€€He€toldÏthe€victim€to€ð ðgive€[him]€the€money€and€there€wonððt€be€no€[sic]€problem.ðð€€The€victimÏpulled€out€the€gold€cigar€box€from€underneath€the€counter,€and€then€went€to€the€beerÏcooler€to€get€a€six„pack€of€Miller€beer€as€Defendant€requested.€€While€turning€aroundÏwith€his€elbows€halfway€up,€the€Defendant€became€frightened€and€pulled€out€hisÏrevolver€which€ð ðaccidentally€fired.ðð€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWhile€the€Defendantððs€statement€was€not€tape€recorded,€Agent€WalleyÏtook€notes€and€then€wrote€out€a€statement€in€narrative€form€which€Defendant€readÏand€signed€after€initialing€all€corrections.€€Sheriff€Kelley€returned€to€the€room€andÏread€the€statement.€€€When€Defendant€affirmed€that€this€was€indeed€his€statement,ÏKelley€signed€the€statement€as€a€witness.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àSteve€Scott,€an€agent€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,Ïadministered€the€ballistics€testing€on€the€pistol€and€the€bullet€fragment.€€While€ScottÏwas€unable€to€determine€that€the€bullet€fragments€were€fired€from€the€DefendantððsÏpistol€due€to€damage,€Scott€testified€that€all€four€class€characteristics€€of€the€bulletÏand€the€pistol€were€a€match.€€These€four€class€characteristics€included€the€caliberÏof€the€gun€and€bullet,€the€direction€of€the€barrel€twist,€the€number€of€lands€andÏgrooves,€and€the€width€of€the€lands€and€grooves.€€€While€the€Defendantððs€weaponÏcould€not€be€isolated€as€the€murder€weapon,€it€could€ð ðcertainlyðð€have€been€theÏâ âœweapon›€used.€€Agent€Scott€also€noted€that€the€pistol€required€trigger€pressureÐ à7€.0 Ðð ðbetween€normal€and€heavyðð€to€fire€the€weapon,€dependent€upon€whether€theÏweapon€was€cocked€or€uncocked€when€it€was€fired.Ìâ âÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€State€then€rested€its€case„in„chief.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àTim€Adams,€a€friend€of€the€Defendantððs,€testified€that€after€the€victimððsÏmurder,€the€Defendant€left€town€for€one€or€two€weeks.€€When€the€DefendantÏreturned,€he€had€both€new€tires€and€a€new€vinyl€top€on€his€car.€€Jokingly,€AdamsÏinquired€whether€the€Defendant€had€ð ðbumped€old€Donn€off,ðð€but€the€Defendant€onlyÏlaughed€in€response.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àJesse€James€Jones€testified€that€he€was€incarcerated€in€a€cell€facingÏthat€of€Defendantððs.€€Jones€made€several€telephone€calls€for€the€Defendant€becauseÏthe€telephone€in€Defendantððs€cell€was€not€working.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àRodney€Johnson€testified€that€the€Defendant€never€told€him€that€heÏrobbed€or€murdered€the€victim.€€Johnson€did€verify€that€Defendant€owned€a€.22Ïpistol.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àStevison€Veasey,€the€Defendantððs€stepfather,€testified€that€DefendantÏvisited€his€mother€around€May€27,€1994.€€During€that€visit,€Veasey€bought€new€tiresÏfor€Defendantððs€car.€€During€that€same€visit,€Veasey€stated€that€Defendantððs€naturalÏfather€put€a€new€vinyl€roof€on€the€Defendantððs€car.ÌÌ̜РÐ9p02 Лà ` àà@!DàòòMotion€To€Suppress€StatementˆÐ `  ÐÌóóà ` àà ¸ àDefendant€argues€that€his€statement€given€to€the€police€on€his€fifth€dayÐ @ à Ðof€incarceration€should€have€been€suppressed€as€a€violation€of€his€Fourth,€Fifth€andÏSixth€Amendment€rights€under€the€United€States€Constitution.€€When€an€accused€isÏafforded€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€merits€of€a€motion€to€suppress,€the€findingsÏof€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€are€binding€upon€the€appellate€court€unless€theÏevidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€these€findings.€€òòState€v.Ð ð  ÐOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€ð ðQuestions€of€credibility€of€the€witnesses,Ð à€ Ðthe€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€and€resolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€areÏmatters€entrusted€to€the€trial€judge€as€the€trier€of€fact.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Provided€that€the€greaterÐ À` Ðweight€of€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€findings,€then€those€findings€shall€beÏupheld€by€the€appellate€court€and€the€party€prevailing€in€the€trial€court€is€entitled€toÏthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€whichÏmay€be€drawn€from€that€evidence.€€òòIdóó.€€In€evaluating€the€correctness€of€the€trialÐ €$  Ðcourtððs€ruling€on€Defendantððs€pretrial€motion€to€suppress,€this€court€may€consider€theÏproof€adduced€both€at€the€suppression€hearing€and€at€trial.€€òòState€v.€Henningóó,€975Ð `(  ÐS.W.2d€290€(Tenn.€1998).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress,€Sheriff€Bill€Kelley€testified€thatÏhe€had€the€Defendant€picked€up€for€questioning€for€the€first€time€on€May€1,€1996.€ÏAfter€the€Defendant€denied€any€involvement€in€the€crime€and€implicated€others,€heÏwas€released€and€further€investigation€occurred.€€In€its€supplemental€findings€of€fact,Ïthe€trial€court€determined€that€Defendant€was€incarcerated€on€May€3,€1996.€€TheÏâ ârecord€reflects,€however,€that€Defendant€was€not€questioned€again€until€May€6,€1996,€œÐ à7€.0 Ðwhen›€he€again€denied€any€involvement€in€the€robbery€or€murder€of€the€victim.€Ïâ âRegarding€Defendantððs€May€6€denials,€Sheriff€Kelley€testified€ð ðI€know€that€heÏ[Defendant]€was€blowing€hot€air€at€me€again€and€I€just€took€the€notes€and€òòthen€IÐ @ à Ðlocked€him€back€upóó.ðð€€(Emphasis€added).Ð 0Ð ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€note€the€chronology€of€events€that€Defendant€was€apprehended€onÏMay€1€and€released€after€denying€involvement€in€the€crimes.€€Two€days€later€he€wasÏagain€taken€into€custody,€but€this€time€he€was€incarcerated€for€three€(3)€days€beforeÏbeing€questioned€on€May€6,€when€he€again€denied€his€participation€in€criminal€acts.€ÏHe€was€promptly€ð ðlocked€upðð€again.€€There€had€been€no€judicial€determination€ofÏprobable€cause€that€Defendant€had€committed€the€crimes.€€As€set€forth€above,ÏDefendant€confessed€on€May€8,€1996.€€No€judicial€determination€of€probable€causeÏto€arrest€Defendant€was€made€until€òòafteróó€the€May€8€confession.€€Ð   @ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àFirst,€we€will€address€the€Defendantððs€contention€that€his€confessionÏwas€obtained€in€violation€of€his€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel.€€The€SixthÏAmendment€right€to€counsel€does€not€attach€until€the€adversarial€judicial€process€hasÏbegun.€€òòMichigan€v.€Jacksonóó,€475€U.S.€625,€629,€106€S.Ct.€1404,€1407,€89€L.Ed.2dÐ P*ð " Ð631€(1986)€(citations€omitted);€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€547€(Tenn.Ð @,à"$ Ð1994).€€The€long„established€law€in€Tennessee€for€the€initiation€of€the€adversarialÏjudicial€process€is€at€the€time€of€the€filing€of€the€formal€charge,€such€as€an€arrestÏwarrant,€indictment,€presentment,€or€preliminary€hearing€in€cases€where€a€warrantÏwas€not€obtained€prior€to€the€arrest.€€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€593€S.W.2d€280,€286€(Tenn.Ð 4 *, Ð1980),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€449€U.S.€845€(1980);€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€795€S.W.2d€680,€685Ð ð5,. Ðâ â(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€It€is€clear€from€the€record€that€Defendant€had€not€beenÐ à7€.0 Ðformally€charged€at€the€time€he€gave€his€statement.€€Therefore€Defendantððs€right€toÏcounsel€had€not€yet€attached,€so€no€violation€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€occurred.€Ìâ âÌà ` àà ¸ àDefendant€urges€this€court€to€suppress€his€statement€as€involuntaryÏbased€upon€denial€of€the€right€to€counsel€during€police€interrogation€pursuant€to€theÏFifth€Amendment.€€If€a€suspect€requests€that€counsel€be€present€during€police„¼initiated€custodial€interrogation,€then€police€must€cease€questioning€until€counsel€forÏthat€suspect€is€present.€€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€444„45,€86€S.Ct.€1602,Ð ð  Ð1612,€16€L.Ed.2d€694€(1966);€òòEdwards€v.€Arizonaóó,€451€U.S.€477,€482,€101€S.Ct.Ð à€ Ð1880,€1883,€68€L.Ed.2d€378€(1981);€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€547„48.€Ð Ðp ÐThe€Defendant€waived€his€right€to€counsel€verbally€and/or€in€writing€on€eachÏoccasion€when€he€was€interrogated€by€the€police.€€Therefore,€his€waiver€is€sufficientÏfor€the€police€to€have€assumed€he€did€not€invoke€his€right€to€counsel€under€the€FifthÏAmendment.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€Defendant€asserts€that€at€the€time€he€gave€his€statement€to€theÏpolice€he€had€been€incarcerated€for€five€(5)€days€and€that€this€amount€of€timeÏviolated€the€Fourth€Amendment€right€to€prompt€judicial€determination€of€probableÏcause€after€a€warrantless€arrest.€€The€State€concedes€that€Defendant€was€detainedÏfor€a€period€of€more€than€forty„eight€(48)€hours,€and€that€therefore,€there€was€aÏviolation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment.€€òòSeeóó€òòCounty€of€Riverside€v.€McLaughlinóó,€500Ð  0À&( ÐU.S.€44,€56,€111€S.Ct.€1661,€1670,€114€L.Ed.2d€49,€63€(1991);€òòState€v.€Huddlestonóó,Ð 2°(* Ð924€S.W.2d€666,€671„73€(Tenn.€1996).€€In€òòHuddlestonóó,€our€state€supreme€courtÐ 4 *, Ðdetermined€that€the€ð ðfruit€of€the€poisonous€treeðð€analysis€is€to€be€applied€toÏâ âdetermine€whether€a€statement€€obtained€in€violation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€must€œÐ à7€.0 Ðbe›€suppressed.€€òòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€674.€€The€question€is€ð ðwhether€[theÐ `  Ðâ âstatement]€ððwas€sufficiently€an€act€of€free€will€to€purge€the€primary€taint€of€theÏunlawful€invasion.ðððð€òòBrown€v.€Illinoisóó,€422€U.S.€590,€598,€95€S.Ct.€2254,€2259,€45Ð @ à ÐL.Ed.2d€416€(1975)€(òòquotingóó€òòWong€Sun€v.€United€Statesóó,€371€U.S.€471,€486,€83€S.Ct.Ð 0Ð Ð407,€416,€9€L.Ed.2d€441€(1963)).€€As€stated€by€the€court€in€òòHuddlestonóó,€ð ð[u]nder€theÐ  À Ðððfruit€of€the€poisonous€treeðð€analysis,€the€focus€is€on€whether€the€evidence€òòwasÐ °  Ðobtained€by€exploitation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€illegalityóó.ðð€€òòHuddlestonóó,€924Ð    ÐS.W.2d€at€674,€(emphasis€added)€(òòcitingóó€òòWong€Sun€v.€United€Statesóó,€371€U.S.€471,Ð ð  Ð488,€83€S.Ct.€407,€417,€9€L.Ed.2d€441€(1963)).€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€òòHuddlestonóó,€the€supreme€court€noted€that€four€(4)€factors€are€to€beÐ À` Ðconsidered€in€determining€whether€the€confession€was€sufficiently€an€act€of€free€willÏto€purge€the€primary€taint€of€the€incarceration€of€a€defendant€without€a€judicialÏdetermination€of€probable€cause.€€These€factors€are:Ìà8 ` à1)à0¸ ` (#` (#àthe€presence€or€absence€of€òòMirandaóó€warnings;Ѐ$ ¸ (#¸ (# Ðà8 ` à2)à0¸ ` (#` (#àthe€temporal€proximity€of€the€arrest€and€the€confession;€Ðp&¸ (#¸ (# Ðà8 ` à3)à0¸ ` (#` (#àthe€presence€of€intervening€circumstances;€and€Ð`( ¸ (#¸ (# Ðà8 ` à4)à ¸ àthe€purpose€and€flagrancy€of€the€official€misconduct.€€òòÐP*ð "` (#` (# ÐÓÓÌÓ¨YÓHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€674„75.€€The€court€in€òòHuddlestonóó€noted€that€the€fourthÐ 8-Ø#% Ðfactor,€the€purpose€and€flagrancy€of€the€official€misconduct,€was€of€particularÏsignificance€in€this€analysis.€€òòIdóó.€at€676.€€Ð 1¸') ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€its€supplemental€findings€of€fact,€the€trial€court€found€that€DefendantÏâ âwas€administered€his€òòMirandaóó€warnings€on€May€1,€May€6,€May€7,€and€May€8.€€The€œÐ è6ˆ-/ Ðrecord›€supports€this€finding,€and€this€weighs€against€suppression€of€the€confession.€Ïâ âDefendant€was€taken€into€custody€without€a€warrant€having€been€issued,€on€May€3,Ï1996,€and€five€(5)€days€later,€still€without€an€intervening€judicial€determination€ofÏprobable€cause,€gave€a€confession€while€incarcerated.€€The€defendant€in€òòHuddlestonóóÐ 0Ð Ðwas€held€without€a€judicial€determination€of€probable€cause€for€72€hours,€whileÏDefendant€in€this€case€was€held€120€hours.€€òòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€675.€€AsÐ °  Ðnoted€in€òòHuddlestonóó,€once€a€detention€becomes€unlawful,€the€increased€passage€ofÐ    Ðtime€makes€the€Fourth€Amendment€violation€worse.€€òòIdóó.€at€675.€€As€stated€by€theÐ ð  Ðsupreme€court,€ð ð[o]nce€the€detention€becomes€unlawful,€the€pressure€to€confessÏlikely€increases€with€each€moment€of€continuing€illegal€detention.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€InÐ Ðp ÐòòHuddlestonóó,€the€supreme€court€held€that€where€the€detention€was€for€approximatelyÐ À` Ð72€hours,€the€ð ðtemporal€proximity€factorðð€weighed€in€favor€of€suppression€of€theÏstatement.€€Likewise,€in€this€case,€where€the€Defendant€was€detained€forÏapproximately€120€hours,€this€factor€weighs€in€favor€of€suppression.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€trial€court,€in€its€supplemental€findings,€determined€that€DefendantððsÏparents€were€allowed€to€visit€with€him€prior€to€his€confession€on€May€8.€€This€fact€wasÏdisputed€by€Defendant€in€the€trial€court€and€on€appeal.€€However,€under€theÏappropriate€standards€of€review,€we€agree€with€the€finding€of€the€trial€court€on€thisÏfactor.€€This€would€weigh€in€favor€of€denying€the€motion€to€suppress€the€statement.€ÏÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€fourth€factor,€and€the€one€which€the€supreme€court€has€placed€theÏmost€significance€upon,€weighs€heavily€in€favor€of€suppression.ÌÌâ âœÐ à7€.0 Лà ` àà ¸ àThe€Defendant€was€not€questioned€for€the€first€approximately€72€hoursÏâ âthat€he€was€incarcerated.€€When€he€was€finally€questioned,€he€again€deniedÏinvolvement€in€the€crimes.€€With€no€additional€evidence€of€probable€cause,€and€stillÏno€judicial€determination€of€probable€cause€for€the€arrest,€the€Sheriff€ð ðlocked€Ï[Defendant]€€back€upðð€because€he€ð ðknew€€that€€[Defendant]€€was€€blowing€€hot€€air€.Ï.€.€again€.€.€.€.ððÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWhen€reviewing€these€facts,€as€we€are€required€to€do€in€light€ofÏòòHuddlestonóó,€and€considering€that€the€ð ðfocusðð€is€on€whether€the€evidence€wasÐ à€ Ðobtained€by€exploitation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€illegality,€òòidóó.€at€674,€the€œñÜñsecondÐ Ðp Ðand€ñÜñfourth›€œfactorñÝñsñÝñ›€œoutweighñÞñsñÞñ›€the€two€factors€which€favor€admissibility€of€theÏconfession.€€Therefore,€the€confession€given€by€Defendant€on€May€8,€1996,€to€ScottÏWalley€and€Sheriff€Kelley€must€be€suppressed.€€Accordingly,€the€judgments€ofÏconviction€are€reversed€and€this€matter€is€remanded€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àDefendant€also€argues€on€appeal€that€the€confession€should€have€beenÏsuppressed€as€being€in€violation€of€Rule€5€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure.€€Rule€5(a)€states€that€a€person€arrested€without€a€warrant€must€be€takenÏwithout€unnecessary€delay€before€the€nearest€appropriate€magistrate.€€The€StateÏconcedes€that€the€detention€of€the€Defendant€violated€the€rule.€€However,€underÏòòHuddlestonóó,€the€test€for€the€violation€of€this€òòstatutoryóó€rather€than€òòconstitutionalóó€rightÐ  0À&( Ðis€the€voluntariness€of€the€confession€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€ÏòòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€670.€€Under€similar€circumstances€as€found€by€the€courtÐ 4 *, Ðin€òòHuddlestonóó,€we€determine€that€the€confession€in€this€case€should€not€be€œÐ ð5,. Ðâ âÐ à7€.0 Ðsuppressed›€solely€under€Rule€5€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€evenÏâ âthough€it€must€be€suppressed€under€Fourth€Amendment€constitutional€provisions.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAlthough€we€have€determined€that€this€case€must€be€reversed€andÏremanded€upon€the€issue€regarding€Defendantððs€confession,€we€will€address€theÏremaining€issues€presented€by€Defendant.€ÌÌà@ªª%DàòòPolygraph€ExaminationˆÐ ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àóóDefendant€contends€that€he€should€have€been€allowed€access€to€theÐ Ðp Ðresults€of€his€polygraph€examination€and€should€have€been€allowed€to€present€theÏresults€as€evidence.€€At€the€suppression€hearing,€Agent€Walley€testified€that€theÏresults€indicated€that€Defendant€was€ð ðdeceptiveðð€as€to€his€involvement€in€the€crimesÏcommitted€against€the€victim.€€Therefore,€Defendant€was€allowed€access€to€theÏresults€of€the€examination.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWell„established€law€in€Tennessee€holds€that€the€results€of€a€polygraphÏexamination€are€not€admissible€as€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Hartóó,€911€S.W.2d€371,€377Ð P*ð " Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Irickóó,€762€S.W.2d€121,€127€(Tenn.€1988),€òòcertóó.Ð @,à"$ Ðòòdeniedóó,€489€U.S.€1072,€109€S.Ct.€1357,€103€L.Ed.2d€825€(1989);€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,Ð 0.Ð$& Ð710€S.W.2d€525,€529€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985);€òòGrant€v.€Stateóó,€213€Tenn.€440,€443,Ð  0À&( Ð374€S.W.2d€391,€392€(1964).€€As€the€State€correctly€notes€within€its€brief,€neither€theÏoffer€to€take€a€polygraph€nor€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€exam€are€admissible€Ïas€evidence.€€òòAdkinsóó,€710€S.W.2d€at€528„29;€òòGrantóó,€374€S.W.2d€at€392.€€This€issueÐ ð5,. Ðis€without€merit.ÌÐ Ð9p02 Ðà@ÓÓDàòòRevolver€and€Ballistics€Test€ResultsóóˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€a€revolver€andÏballistic€test€results€into€evidence.€€Defendant€asserts€that€the€revolver€wasÏinadmissible€since€his€prior€criminal€record€had€been€expunged.€€Furthermore,€theÏDefendant€urges€this€court€that€the€ballistics€test€results€were€so€inconclusive€as€toÏbe€rendered€neither€relevant€nor€probative,€but€highly€prejudicial.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àDuring€September€1994€at€the€Mid„South€Fair€in€Memphis,€Tennessee,ÏDefendant€was€arrested€for€carrying€a€loaded€.22€caliber€revolver.€€After€pleadingÏguilty€to€charges€of€carrying€a€weapon€on€recreational€property,€Defendant€wasÏplaced€on€judicial€diversion.€€Evidently,€Defendant€completed€his€sentence€ofÏdiversion€without€further€incident€and€his€record€was€expunged.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àExpungement€pursuant€to€judicial€diversion€includes€ð ðall€recordationÏrelating€to€the€personððs€arrest,€indictment€or€information,€trial,€finding€of€guilty€andÏdismissal€and€discharge.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„313(b).€€This€statuteððsÏpurpose€is€to€restore€the€defendant€to€the€status€the€person€occupied€prior€to€suchÏarrest,€indictment€or€information.€€Defendant€maintains€that€physical€evidence€isÏinadmissible€under€the€judicial€diversion€statute.€€There€is€no€authority€to€support€hisÏargument.€€The€purpose€of€expunging€records€of€a€criminal€charge€is€to€place€theÏperson€back€in€the€position€he€or€she€occupied€prior€to€being€arrested€or€charged.€ÏòòState€v.€Simsóó,€746€S.W.2d€191,€199€(Tenn.€1988).€€While€the€trial€court€did€allow€useÐ 4 *, Ðof€the€revolver€as€admissible€physical€evidence,€he€refused€to€allow€admission€of€anyÏâ âfacts€surrounding€Defendantððs€prior€arrest.€€The€expungement€language€in€our€œñÔñÐ à7€.0 ÐñÔñjudicial›€diversion€statute€precludes€use€of€proof€of€any€arrest,€indictment,€Ïâ âinformation,€or€trial.€€òòState€v.€Dishmanóó,€915€S.W.2d€458,€464€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð P ð Ð1995).€€Physical€evidence€is€not€excluded€under€this€statutory€section,€and€this€issueÏis€without€merit.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àDefendant€complains€the€ballistic€test€results€should€have€beenÏsuppressed€as€they€were€ð ðinconclusiveðð€and,€although€relevant,€their€probative€valueÏwas€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€The€decision€toÏadmit€or€exclude€evidence€rests€in€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€thisÏcourt€will€not€overturn€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€absent€a€clear€showing€of€abuse€ofÏdiscretion.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€806€(Tenn.€1994).€€While€the€officerÐ À` Ðwho€conducted€the€ballistics€tests€admitted€the€test€results€were€not€conclusive,€heÏtestified€that€the€weapon€could€not€be€excluded€as€the€potential€murder€weapon.€ÏThe€officer€also€stated€that€the€four€class€characteristics€of€the€Defendantððs€weaponÏmatched€the€bullet€which€killed€the€victim.€€€The€revolver€and€the€murder€weapon€hadÏmatching€calibers,€same€number€of€land€and€grooves,€matching€land€and€grooveÏwidths,€and€the€same€direction€of€barrel€twists.€œñÕñ€ñÕññ×ññÖñÌñÖññ×ññÖñCoupled›€with€the€statement€ofÏDefendant€confessing€to€the€crime,ñÖññØñ€tñØññÙñTñÙñhese€test€results€are€relevant,€andÏthe€probative€value€clearly€outweighs€the€potential€prejudicial€effect€of€theÏinconclusive€nature€of€the€results.ñÚñ€€ñÚñÌÌà@ccDàòòòòBatson€óóòòóóà@@DD/DàóóòòChallenge€and€Change€of€VenueˆÐ  0À&( ÐÌóóà ` àà ¸ àDefendant€argues€that€the€Stateððs€exclusion€of€certain€black€jurors€wasÐ 4 *, Ðin€violation€of€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476€U.S.€79,€106€S.Ct.€1712,€90€L.Ed.2d€69€ñÛñÐ ð5,. Ðâ âÐ à7€.0 ÐñÛñ(1986).€€Following€the€conclusion€of€voir€dire,€the€State€exercised€its€peremptoryÏâ âchallenges€against€four€(4)€jurors,€specifically€jurors€Rivers,€Howell,€Woods€andÏBryant.€€Defendant€objected€under€òòBatsonóó€that€such€challenges€were€based€uponÐ @ à Ðwillful€and€purposeful€discrimination€by€the€State.€€While€the€Defendant€argued€thatÏthese€challenges€resulted€in€all€blacks€being€excluded€from€the€jury,€the€StateÏresponded,€ð ð[I]tððs€been€an€unfortunate€coincidence€that€most€everybody€that€knowsÏthe€defendant€or€his€family€is€African„American,€but€thatððs€a€sociological€fact€that€theÏState€canððt€be€prejudiced€by.€.€.€.ðð€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAfter€Defendant€objected,€the€State€responded€to€each€challenge€withÏan€individual€explanation€for€the€peremptory€challenge.€€First,€with€regard€to€jurorÏRivers,€the€State€cited€the€fact€that€he€had€been€through€the€criminal€courts€beforeÏand€worked€with€individuals€similarly€situated€to€the€Defendant€on€a€daily€basis.€€TheÏState€referenced€the€challenge€to€juror€Howell€due€to€her€relationship€with€theÏDefendant€and€his€family,€and€that,€in€response€to€questioning,€some€of€her€answersÏð ðgave€her€some€pause€about€her€judgment€in€this€case.ðð€€Juror€Woods€was€excludedÏby€the€State€as€he€has€a€son€the€same€age€as€the€Defendant€and€is€friends€with€theÏDefendant.€€Juror€Bryant€had€two€family€members€convicted€of€felony€offenses€inÏFayette€County.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThere€is€a€three„step€analysis€defined€in€òòBatsonóó€which€is€used€toÐ  0À&( Ðdetermine€whether€purposeful€discrimination€has€occurred€in€jury€selection.€€òòBatsonóó,Ð 2°(* Ð476€U.S.€at€96„98.€€First,€the€opponent€of€the€peremptory€challenge€must€establishÏa€prima€facie€case€of€racial€discrimination.€€Second,€the€one€exercising€the€challengeÏmust€present€a€race„neutral€explanation€for€exercising€the€challenge.€€Third,€the€trialÏcourt€is€to€determine€whether€the€reasons€given€are€sufficient€or€are€pretexts€forÐ Ð9p02 Ðdiscrimination.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€òòWoodson€v.€Porter€Brown€Limestone€Company,€Inc.óó,€916€S.W.2dÐ x Ð896,€904€(Tenn.€1996),€our€supreme€court€held€that€in€accomplishing€the€mandateÏof€òòBatsonóó,€the€trial€court€should€state€clearly€on€the€record,€outside€the€juryððsÐ ˆ(  Ðpresence,€the€facts€relied€upon€for€finding€the€presence€or€absence€of€a€prima€facieÏshowing.€€If€the€trial€court€finds€that€a€prima€facie€showing€has€been€made,€then€theÏparty€seeking€to€exclude€the€juror€must€have€an€opportunity€to€offer€neutral€andÏnondiscriminatory€explanations€for€the€exercise€of€the€challenge.€€ð ðThereafter,€theÏjudge€must€determine,€based€on€all€the€evidence,€whether€purposeful€discriminationÏhas€been€established.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€904.€€While€the€procedure€used€by€the€trial€court€didÐ ¸X Ðnot€explicitly€follow€these€guidelines,€we€must€conclude€that€the€trial€judgeÏdetermined€first€that€a€prima€facie€case€of€discrimination€was€established€and,Ïsecond,€that€the€trial€judge€rejected€Defendantððs€objection€by€concluding€that€thereÏwas€no€purposeful€discrimination€by€the€State.€€òòIdóó.€at€905.€€While€the€trial€court€didÐ Ø'x Ðnot€specifically€state€within€the€record€the€reasons€for€each€finding,€the€record€of€voirÏdire€supports€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€as€to€Defendantððs€òòBatsonóó€objection.€€Upon€reviewÐ è+ˆ"" Ðof€the€record,€we€will€not€set€aside€the€rulings€of€the€trial€court€as€they€are€not€clearlyÏerroneous.€€€òòSeeóó€òòWoodsonóó,€916€S.W.2d€at€906€(citations€omitted).Ð ø/˜&& ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àAfter€Defendant€made€a€contemporaneous€motion€for€a€change€ofÏvenue€during€his€voir€dire€challenges,€the€trial€court€overruled€his€motion.€€DefendantÏobjected€on€the€basis€of€the€prosecutorððs€statement€that€most€every€African„¼American€in€the€potential€jury€pool€knew€the€Defendant.€€Rule€21(a)€of€theÐ  :À00 ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides€for€a€change€of€venue€ð ðif€it€appearsÏto€the€court€that,€due€to€undue€excitement€against€the€defendant€in€the€county€whereÏthe€offense€was€committed€or€any€other€cause,€a€fair€trial€probably€could€not€be€had.ðð€ÏThe€decision€to€change€venue€rests€in€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€willÏnot€be€overturned€absent€a€clear€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòRippy€v€Stateóó,€550€S.W.2dÐ €  Ð636,€638€(Tenn.€1977);€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€360€(Tenn.€1982).€€Ð ˆ(  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€order€to€reverse€a€defendantððs€conviction€due€to€the€denial€of€hisÏmotion€to€change€venue,€the€defendant€must€establish€that€the€jurors€empaneled€toÏhear€his€case€were€prejudiced€or€biased€against€him.€€òòState€v.€Burtonóó,€751€S.W.2dÐ ¨H Ð440,€451€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€192€(Tenn.Ð °P Ð1992),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€114€S.Ct.€740€(1993).€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€thatÐ ¸X Ðundue€excitement€or€any€other€cause€threatened€his€right€to€a€fair€trial€in€that€county.€ÏThe€mere€fact€that€there€was€extensive€knowledge€of€the€crimes€and€the€defendantÏis€not€sufficient€to€render€the€trial€constitutionally€unfair.€€òòState€v.€Kygeróó,€787€S.W.2dÐ Ð%p Ð13,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989)€(citation€omitted).€€Absent€any€proof€by€thisÏDefendant€that€the€jurors€were€prejudiced€against€him,€we€find€this€issue€to€beÏwithout€merit.ÌñÀñœñÀññÁñœñÁñÌñÁñ›ñÁññÁññÁñà@^^&DàòòMotion€for€MistrialóóˆÐ ø/˜&& ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€his€motion€forÏa€mistrial€based€upon€the€prosecutorððs€reference€to€Defendantððs€expunged€convictionÏduring€the€trial.€€During€pretrial€motions,€the€trial€court€determined€that€DefendantððsÏprior€arrest€had€been€properly€expunged€and,€therefore,€the€prosecution€could€notÐ  :À00 Ðð ðgo€into€the€underlying€circumstances€of€any€crimes€[the€Defendant]€would€haveÏcommitted€while€he€had€the€gun€or€any€charges€against€him.ðð€€Defendant€claims€thatÏthe€prosecution€did€present€testimony€of€and€reference€these€inadmissible€matters.€ÏÌà ` àà ¸ àA€mistrial€is€an€appropriate€remedy€when€a€trial€cannot€continue,€or€aÏmiscarriage€of€justice€would€result€if€it€did.€€òòState€v.€McPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€365,Ð ˆ(  Ð370€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€The€decision€to€grant€a€mistrial€rests€in€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€this€court€will€not€interfere€with€the€exercise€of€thatÏdiscretion€absent€clear€abuse€appearing€on€the€face€of€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,Ð  @ Ð733€S.W.2d€517,€522€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€786€S.W.2d€642,Ð ¨H Ð644€(Tenn.€1990);€òòMcPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€370.Ð °P ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àClearly,€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€prosecutor€elicited€testimonyÏregarding€the€pistol€taken€from€the€Defendant,€but€the€prosecutor€at€no€instance€everÏinquired€into€the€underlying€circumstances€surrounding€the€Defendantððs€arrest.€€As€Ïpreviously€determined,€the€testimony€concerning€Defendantððs€possession€of€aÏrevolver€was€admissible,€and€there€is€no€evidence€of€a€ð ðmanifest€necessityðð€by€whichÏthe€trial€court€should€have€declared€a€mistrial.€€òòSeeóó€òòArnold€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€792,Ð è+ˆ"" Ð794€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).Ìà ` àÌà@ DàòòTestimony€of€Jesse€James€JonesòòˆÐ 2 (( ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àóóóóDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€some€portionsÐ 6°,, Ðof€the€testimony€of€Jesse€James€Jones,€a€cellmate€of€the€Defendant.€€Specifically,ÏDefendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€excluded€testimony€regarding€the€DefendantððsÐ  :À00 Ðlack€of€ability€to€use€a€telephone€while€incarcerated.€€As€this€issue€was€notÏspecifically€included€within€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial,€this€issue€is€notÏproperly€before€this€court€and€is,€therefore,€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòState€v.Ð p  ÐClintonóó,€754€S.W.2d€100,€103€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).Ð x ÐÌà@ÏÏ%DàòòJudgment€of€AcquittalóóˆÐ ˆ(  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€grant€a€motionÏfor€a€directed€verdict€and€judgment€of€acquittal€following€the€conclusion€of€the€StateððsÏproof€and€at€the€end€of€the€trial.€€The€duty€of€the€trial€judge€and€the€reviewing€courtÏon€the€determination€of€a€motion€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal€is€the€same€as€for€aÏmotion€for€a€directed€verdict.€€òòState€v.€Torreyóó,€880€S.W.2d€710,€712€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ¸X ÐApp.€1993).€€This€duty€is€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 ` àThe€rule€for€determining€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€requires€the€trialÏjudge€and€the€reviewing€court€on€appeal€to€look€at€all€of€the€evidence,Ïto€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€it€in€favor€of€the€opponent€of€theÏmotion,€and€to€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€from€it€in€its€favor;€toÏdiscard€all€countervailing€evidence,€and€if€then,€there€is€any€dispute€asÏto€any€material€determinative€evidence,€or€any€doubt€as€to€theÏconclusion€to€be€drawn€from€the€whole€evidence,€the€motion€must€beÏdenied.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌòòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€549€S.W.2d€943,€946€(Tenn.€1977)€(òòcitingóó€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€533Ð ì,Œ## ÐS.W.2d€326,€329€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975)).ÌÌÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àDefendant€was€convicted€of€murder€in€the€perpetration€of€€robbery€andÏsecond€degree€murder,€which€the€trial€court€merged€as€one€conviction€for€felonyÏmurder.€€At€the€time€of€this€offense,€a€reckless€killing€of€another€committed€in€theÏperpetration€of€or€attempt€to€perpetrate€any€robbery€or€burglary€constituted€firstÏdegree€murder.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2).€€He€was€also€convicted€ofÐ 9¼// Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery.€€Especially€aggravated€robbery€is€the€intentional€orÏknowing€theft€of€property€from€another€person€accomplished€by€a€deadly€weaponÏand€the€victim€suffers€serious€bodily€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€ñÁñœñÁñ39„13„401€and€€€ñÁñ›ñÁññÁññÁñÏñÁñœñÁñ„403.ñÁñ›ñÁññÁññÁñ€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFrom€the€record,€it€is€clear€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€theÏtrial€courtððs€refusal€to€grant€these€motions.€€While€Defendant€focuses€upon€theÏelement€of€ð ðpremeditationðð€in€his€brief,€this€mental€state€was€not€required€by€theseÏoffenses€and€his€argument€is€moot.€€In€his€own€statement,€Defendant€admitted€toÏintentionally€using€a€revolver€to€rob€the€victim€of€his€store€earnings.€€ñÀñœñÀñWe€note€that€allÏevidence€admitted€at€the€trial,€even€if€admitted€erroneously,€can€be€consñ·ñnñ·ñidered€whenÏaddressing€a€Defendantððs€challenge€to€the€ñÁññ¼ñœñ¼ññÁñsufñºñiñºñficñ»ñiñ»ñency€of€the€evidence€to€sustain€theÏconviction.€€òòSeeóó€òòLockhart€v.€Nelsonóó,€488€U.S.€33,€109€S.Ct.€285,€102€L.Ed.2d€265Ð À!` Ð(1988);€òòState€v.€Longstreetóó,€619€S.W.2d€97,€100„01€(Tenn.€1981).€ñ¸ñâ  âñ¸ñ€While›€theÐ È#h ÐDefendant€claims€to€have€accidentally€fired€the€handgun,€evidence€demonstratedÏthat€it€would€take€a€significant€amount€of€pressure€to€discharge€the€weapon.€€In€anyÏevent,€the€reckless€use€of€the€weapon€resulting€in€the€death€of€the€victim€whileÏDefendant€committed€a€robbery€is€sufficient€to€constitute€convictions€of€felonyÏmurder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.ÌÌà@###DàòòLesser€Included€OffensesˆÐ 2 (( ÐÌóóà ` àà ¸ àWhile€we€are€addressing€each€of€the€issues€raised€by€Defendant,Ð 6°,, Ðœñ½ñdespite€the€fact€that€ñ½ññ¾ñeven›€though›€ñ¾ñwe›€have€reversed€the€convictions€based€upon€his€first€issue,€weÏnote€that€if€the€case€is€retried,€any€issue€regarding€the€charging€of€lesser€includedÐ  :À00 Ðoffenses€must€be€based€upon€the€record€presented€in€the€new€trial.€Ìâ âÌà ` àà ¸ àDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€charge€the€juryÏwith€the€lesser€offenses€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder,€including€voluntaryÏmanslaughter€and€criminally€negligent€homicide.€€Reasoning€that€there€was€notÏadequate€evidence€of€passion€or€provocation,€the€trial€court€refused€to€charge€theÏjury€on€these€lesser€offenses.€€The€trial€court€charged€second€degree€murder€as€aÏlesser€offense€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder€and€charged€reckless€homicideÏas€a€lesser€offense€of€felony€murder.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€note€that€the€Defendant€failed€to€include€this€issue€in€his€motion€forÏa€new€trial.€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€3(e)€requires€that€issues€in€aÏmotion€for€new€trial€be€ð ðspecifically€stated€.€.€.€otherwise€such€issues€will€be€treatedÏas€waived.ðð€€We€do€have€the€authority€to€address€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€chargeÏthe€jury€on€appropriate€lesser€offenses€as€plain€error.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b).€ÏHowever,€for€the€reasons€stated€hereafter,€we€find€no€plain€error.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€Defendant€was€convicted€by€the€jury€of€second€degree€murder,Ïfelony€murder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€The€trial€court€merged€the€offenseÏof€second€degree€murder€into€the€conviction€for€murder€in€the€perpetration€of€aÏfelony.€€Likewise,€even€if€the€jury€had€been€charged€with€voluntary€manslaughter€andÏcriminally€negligent€homicide€and€had€delivered€a€guilty€verdict€on€each€of€thoseÏcounts,€both€voluntary€manslaughter€and€criminally€negligent€homicide€convictionsÏwould€have€been€merged€by€the€trial€court€into€the€conviction€for€felony€murder.€€Ð  :À00 ÐThe€result€would€have€been€the€same€as€Defendantððs€current€conviction€for€felonyÏmurder.€€Therefore,€any€error€in€failing€to€charge€these€offenses€is€harmless.€€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌà@#DàòòProsecutorial€misconductóóˆÐ €  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àDefendant€asserts€in€his€brief€that€the€Stateððs€prosecutor€conductedÏhimself€inappropriately€throughout€the€trial€by€failing€to€comply€with€discovery,Ïimpermissibly€communicating€with€a€witness€during€trial€recess,€and€notingÏDefendantððs€expunged€conviction€during€the€trial.€€Defendantððs€motion€for€new€trialÏspecifically€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€ð ðin€allowing€the€State€to€argue€during€theÏsentencing€phase,€matter€which€was€outside€the€scope€of€the€aggravating€factorsÏpresented€by€the€State.ðð€€There€is€no€mention€in€his€motion€for€new€trial€of€anyÏcommunication€by€the€prosecutor€with€a€witness€during€the€trial€or€of€any€failure€byÏthe€State€to€comply€with€discovery.€During€the€Defendantððs€hearing€on€the€motion€forÏnew€trial,€his€counsel€orally€requested€that€the€portion€of€his€motion€referencing€theÏð ðsentencing€phaseðð€of€the€trial€be€struck€as€the€Defendant€received€the€minimumÏsentence€with€regards€to€all€counts.€€As€the€Defendantððs€remaining€assertions€ofÏprosecutorial€misconduct€were€not€specifically€included€within€his€motion€for€newÏtrial,€this€issue€is€not€properly€before€this€court€and€is,€therefore,€waived.€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€3(e);€òòState€v.€Clintonóó,€754€S.W.2d€100,€103€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€Ð 2 (( Ðœñ¿ñÌñ¿ññÀñ›ñÀññ¿ñÌñ¿ññÀñ›ñÀññ¿ñÌñ¿ñ›Ð  :À00 Ðà@þþ*DàòòConclusionˆÐ `  ÐóóÌà ` àà ¸ àFor€the€reasons€stated€in€this€opinion€addressing€Defendantððs€issue€onÏthe€motion€to€suppress,€the€judgments€of€conviction€for€felony€murder€and€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery€are€reversed.€€Reversal€of€the€judgments€also€negates€theÏmerger€of€the€second€degree€murder€conviction€into€the€felony€murder€conviction.€ÏBy€return€of€a€verdict€of€guilty€of€second€degree€murder,€the€jury€acquitted€theÏDefendant€of€the€greater€offense€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder€in€that€countÏof€the€indictment.€€Accordingly,€this€case€is€remanded€for€a€new€trial€on€the€chargesÏof€one€count€of€felony€murder,€one€count€of€second€degree€murder,€and€one€countÏof€especially€aggravated€robbery.ÌÓÓÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JR.,€JudgeÌÌ