WPCl 8<+ KURp<5ɢű%?a0Sqڡe_x  N5Wr1g7e^e[XkzPd]zR?$xb[U&.wl9 eqw*vIÏɸ˕I!x݃M%0KVy֤(u@6L=[Tjb!,A|#6[ &mY `!̝:?|=Lh&a#MV%N =%'uJxX{@Ѽ7!ȄBfT\&JM:H?ofyn!Ⱦ7/m]J)]p eT խNjzf9r`HT9w8 )o5΢GR;: iP0e,Fb#\ % U @# 0c U N ^ E wQ zU  4   m   i / 0DN999E;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;b==================================== 0EEEE B<< 0Y D3  D-< 0Kii AS 0 0D} AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(I Z(Times New Roman (l$  ..8Ytdd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular+,s  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt8n_+Cߡ3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  - -(G2w$ !  .8Qdd8         0  } d(3{$ !  .8Qdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3{$ !  .8Qdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !  .8Qdd8     _Q8iXXdd8  QQ@ QINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#Q+#Ԉ & @*XiXQ #QXXi#  JOND.HALLv.BILL_MCLESKY_,etal.XiXQ  J 5@  ChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @#No.991281II  6 @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @ No.M200001857_COA_ԄR3CVFiledJanuary11,_2002_Ԉ   AV) ` dE<|` A }   #QXXi#XiXQ@c c  ORDERONPETITIONTOREHEAR #QXXi#XiXQԈ d #QXXiU#XiXQ  JonHallhasfiledarespectfulandwellwrittenPetitiontoRehear.Afterexamininghis N Petitionandtheargumentscontainedtherein,weconcludethatMr.Hallisnotentitledtotherelief : heseeks,andweaccordinglydeclinetogranthimanotherhearing. &v @) I. N    Mr.Hallcontendsthatweoverlookedtheimpactthatthedisruptionoftelephonecontact & betweenhimselfandhisattorneyhadontheSupremeCourtsdecisionontheappealofhis  conviction,Statev.JonHall,8S.W.3d593(Tenn.1999).Whileheacknowledgesourobservation  thattheSupremeCourtdiscussedandrejectedthefactualpredicatebehindhisargumentof  diminishedcapacity,hedrawsourattentiontothefirstfootnotetotheSupremeCourtsopinion:   Duringoralargument,thedefendantraisedtwoadditionalissuesforthefirsttime: ^!  first,whetherthetrialcourterredinpermittingtheStatetouseamannequinas J"! demonstrativeevidencetodocumentthelocationandextentofthevictim'sinjuries, 6#" andsecond,whetherthetrialcourterredduringtheguiltphasebyinstructingthe "$r# jury,inreferencetotheintoxicationdefense,that[_i]ntoxication_Ԁisirrelevant[sic]to %^ $ theissueoftheessentialelementoftheDefendant'sculpablementalstate.Neither %J!% theuseofthemannequinnorthemisstatementofthepatternjuryinstructionwere &6"& objectedtoattrial.Moreover,theywerenotlistedaserrorsineithertheMotionfor '"#' NewTrialorintheappealtotheCourtofCriminalAppeals.Wefindthatthefailure ($( toraisetheseissuesinpreviousproceedingsconstituteswaiver,andwedeclineto )$) addressthematthistime. *%*  Z-(-   Relyingonthislanguage,Mr.Hallthenarguesthatifhisattorneyhadtimelybriefedthe  questionoftheerroneousjuryinstruction,theSupremeCourtwouldhavebeencompelledtoreduce  hisconvictionfromfirstdegreemurdertoseconddegreemurder,ortoorderanewtrial.Wedonot  agree. t @) II.  L    TheproceedingsoftheSupremeCourt,likethoseofthiscourt,aregovernedbytheRules $ t ofAppellateProcedure.Rule36(b)setsoutthestandardsforreversal:  `  ` (b)EffectofError.Afinaljudgmentfromwhichreliefisavailableand  8  otherwiseappropriateshallnotbesetasideunless,consideringthewholerecord, $  errorinvolvingasubstantialrightmoreprobablythannotaffectedthejudgmentor   wouldresultinprejudicetothejudicialprocess.     Thus,eveniftheSupremeCourthadchosentoaddressthejuryinstructionerror,itstill   wouldnothavebeenrequiredtoreversethetrialcourt,unlessitfoundthattheerrorwasprejudicial p tothedegreesetoutinRule36(b).Inotherwords,errorsdeemedtobeharmlessdonotfurnish \ groundsforreversal. H   Asweindicatedabove,theSupremeCourtaddressedtheevidencebehindMr.Hallsclaim  p ofdiminishedcapacity,andfounditlessthancompelling.  \  OurCodeprovidesthatwhilevoluntaryintoxicationisnotadefensetoprosecution 4 foranoffense,evidenceofsuchintoxicationmaybeadmittedtonegateaculpable   mentalstate.Thedefendant'sargumentthathisintoxicationrenderedhimunableto   formthementalstatenecessaryforfirstdegreemurder,however,isnotpersuasive.  Thedefendant'sownstatementstoDuttonandDr._Zager_Ԁconstitutetheonlyevidence  ofintoxication.Nowitnessdescribedthedefendantasdrunkorintoxicated.  Furthermore,thedefendant'sconductintravelingtoMrs.Hall'shouse,disconnecting l thetelephone,barricadingthebedroomdoor,andcompletinghisescapeafterthe X  killingbeliestheclaimthathewasincapableofpremeditationanddeliberation. D! 8S.W.3dat600. #l! @^^( III.  $D #   Mr.Hallcorrectlynotesthatbecauseoftheuniquenessandfinalityofthedeathsentence,the &"% courtshavefounditnecessarytoexerciseagreaterdegreeofscrutinyovertheprocessthatresults '#& insuchasentencethaninothercases.However,ourSupremeCourthasnotexempteddeathpenalty (#' appealsfromtheharmlesserrorstandard.SeeStatev.Sims,45S.W.3d1(Tenn.2001);Statev. )$( Harris,839S.W.2d54(Tenn.1992),cert.denied,507U.S.954(1993). |*%)  h+&*   Mr.Hallcitesseveralcasesthatstatethatharmlesserroranalysisisinapplicable,andreversal  automatic,whenthepurportederrorinfectstheentiretrialprocessandnecessarilyrendersthetrial  fundamentallyunfair.Wenotethatonlyaverylimitedclassoferrorsmeetstheserequirements.  Theseincludeatrialjudgeslackofimpartiality,Statev.Benson,973S.W.2d202(Tenn.1998);a t completedenialofcounsel,Johnsonv.UnitedStates,520U.S.461(1997);denialofapublictrial, ` _Waller_Ԁv.Georgia,467U.S.39(1984);anddefectivejuryinstructionsonreasonabledoubt,Sullivan L  v.Louisiana,508U.S.275(1983). 8    Ontheotherhand,anerroneousjuryinstructionthatomittedanelementoftheoffense  ` chargedwasdeterminednottobeexemptfromtheharmlesserrorrule.Statev.Garrison40S.W.3d  L  426(Tenn.2000);_Neder_Ԁv.UnitedStates,527U.S.1(1999).Atrialjudgeserroneousinstruction  8  onselfdefenseinacapitalmurdercasewaslikewisedeemedtobeharmlesserror.Statev.Sims, $  45S.W.3d1(Tenn.2001).Thisdoesnotmeanthaterrorsinjuryinstructionsmaynotfurnish   groundsforreversalofthetrialcourt,butratherthatreversalinsuchcasesisonlyappropriateifthe   errorisfoundtohaveaffectedtheresult.         InlightoftheSupremeCourtsanalysisofthecircumstancesbehindMr.Hallsmurderof p hiswife,wedonotfindthatatimelychallengetotheerroneousjuryinstructionwould more \ probablythannothaveledtoadifferentresult.WeaccordinglyrejectMr.Hallsclaimthathewas H prejudicedbyhisattorneysfailuretomountsuchachallengetohisconviction,andwedenyhis 4 PetitiontoRehear.  p    `     h   ________________________________________      `     h   BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.      `     h   ________________________________________     `     h   WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE l    `     h   ________________________________________ 0"     `     h   WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE #l!