ÿWPC}! 4# èUNó %A 0ÆG 4)U:8w@r 0 ² 0D¼ 0J 0TJ 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh 0dÝ AMA 0XŽ D3æ ²8Ë BU> U*^B)ˆDC± AQôÆE 0D  0DO D/“ B AMßv~,vÓª˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓäzz!3|x , øð AZ‹"Arial Regular ú û ü ý Dþ ÿ     Ó€(º(3eB$¤¤Ý ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ* (Cþÿ << Gÿÿ(0"ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd ¨Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ18,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó .Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÓÓÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔAn€amendment€to€the€rule,€which,€if€approved€by€the€General€Assembly,€will€be€effective€JulyÏ1,€1997,€provides€as€follows:€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(c)€ò òPeremptory€Challenge€and€Procedure€for€Exercising.ó ó€„ÏAfter€prospective€jurors€have€been€passed€for€cause,€counsel€willÏsubmit€simultaneously€and€in€writing,€to€the€trial€judge,€the€name€ofÏany€juror€in€the€group€of€the€first€twelve€who€have€been€seated€thatÏeither€counsel€elects€to€challenge€peremptorily.€€Upon€eachÏsubmission,€each€counsel€shall€submit€either€a€challenge€or€a€blankÏsheet€of€paper.€€Neither€party€shall€make€known€the€fact€that€the€partyÏhas€not€challenged.€€Replacement€jurors€will€be€seated€in€the€panel€ofÏtwelve€in€the€order€of€their€selection.€€If€necessary,€additionalÏreplacement€jurors€will€then€be€examined€for€cause€and,€after€passed,Ïcounsel€will€again€submit€simultaneously,€and€in€writing,€to€the€trialÏjudge€the€name€of€any€juror€in€the€group€of€twelve€that€counsel€electsÏto€challenge€peremptorily.€€This€procedure€will€be€followed€until€a€fullÏjury€has€been€selected€and€accepted€by€counsel.€€PeremptoryÏchallenges€may€be€directed€to€any€member€of€the€jury,€and€counselÏshall€not€be€limited€to€replacement€jurors.€€Alternate€jurors€will€beÏselected€in€the€same€manner.€€The€trial€judge€will€keep€a€list€of€thoseÏchallenged€and,€if€the€same€juror€is€challenged€by€both€parties,€eachÏwill€be€charged€with€the€challenge.€€They€trial€judge€shall€not€discloseÏto€any€juror€the€identity€of€the€party€challenging€the€juror.Ì d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd* (Cþÿ << GÿÿPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÑ7€f_XdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€&ŠÔßR€"(A1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€JACKSONóóÌà@ àNOVEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à*à àC.C.A.€#€02C01„9605„CC„00159€Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà à*à àTIPTON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Joe€H.€Walker,€JudgeÌTERRY€LYNN€ANTHONY,à à*à à(First€Degree€Murder)Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà à*ÌÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÓÓJan€R.€Patterson€à àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ225€West€Baltimore€à àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌSuite€BÌJackson,€TN€€38301à àà à€€€€€€€€€Ellen€H.€Pollack€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌOf€Counsel:à àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493à àà àÌDavid€Stockton€Ìand€à àà àà àà àà àà àWalt€Freeland€ÌGary€Antricanà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌOffice€of€District€Public€Defenderà àà à302€Market€StreetÌ131„A€Industrial€Roadà àà àà àSomerville,€TN€€38068€ÌCovington,€TN€€38019€ÌÌChristopher€L.€Brown,€Attorney€Ì6471€Stage€Road,€Suite€201ÌMemphis,€TN€€38134€Ì(at€trial)ÌÌà àà àà àÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓœò òòòÑ7€ ´¦ XXdæXdì7Ñà@ àOPINIONóóó ó›Ìà àà àThe€defendant,€Terry€Lynn€Anthony,€was€indicted€for€first€degreeÏmurder€and€attempted€first€degree€murder.€€The€defendant€was€convicted€of€theÏfirst€degree€murder€of€Jacqueline€Anthony€and€the€attempted€voluntaryÏmanslaughter€of€Charlie€Boyce,€Jr.€€On€direct€appeal,€this€court€ordered€a€newÏtrial€because€the€defendant€had€been€required€to€wear€shackles€in€the€presenceÏof€the€jury€throughout€the€first€proceeding.€€òòState€v.€Terry€Lynn€Anthonyóó,€No.Ï02C01„9408„CC„00173€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€May€10,€1995).€€OnÏremand,€the€defendant€entered€a€plea€of€guilt€to€attempted€voluntaryÏmanslaughter€for€which€he€received€a€two„year€sentence.€€Afterward,€a€juryÏfound€the€defendant€guilty€of€first€degree€murder.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€lifeÏsentence.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issuesÏfor€our€review:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)à àwhether€the€evidence€of€premeditation€andÏdeliberation€was€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction€ofÏfirst€degree€murder;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)à àwhether€the€jury€selection€procedure€violatedÏRule€24€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)à àwhether€the€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€juryÏon€the€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)à àwhether€the€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€juryÏon€the€possible€ranges€of€punishment;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)à àwhether€the€trial€court€properly€exercised€itsÏduties€as€a€thirteenth€juror.ÌÌÌÌÓÓWe€find€no€reversible€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€and€his€wife,€Jacqueline€Anthony,€had€beenÏseparated€for€several€years.€€They€had€two€sons€who€were€in€the€physicalÏcustody€of€the€victim;€they€lived€with€the€victim's€mother,€Mary€Maclin.€€At€aboutÏ7:00€A.M.€on€August€23,€1993,€the€defendant€stopped€at€the€Maclin€residenceÏand€learned€from€his€two€sons,€who€were€waiting€outside€for€their€school€bus,Ïthat€the€victim€had€spent€the€night€before€with€a€male€friend,€Charlie€L.€Boyce,€Jr.€ÏThe€defendant€drove€away€from€the€Maclin€residence,€stopped€his€car€to€load€aÏshotgun,€and€then€drove€until€he€saw€the€Boyce€vehicle;€Boyce€and€the€victimÏwere€inside,€traveling€toward€the€Maclin€residence.€€Boyce€and€the€victim€leftÏtheir€car€and€ran€toward€the€residence€of€€William€Dowell.€€The€defendantÏfollowed€them€and€fired€several€shots€at€their€car€before€the€victim,€shot€in€theÏknee,€was€disabled.€€Boyce€was€able€to€get€inside€the€Dowell€residence€justÏas€the€defendant,€from€a€distance€of€two€to€six€yards,€shot€the€victim€in€theÏchest€and€the€head.ÌÌà àà àThe€victim's€brother,€Walter€Maclin,€Jr.,€was€at€the€Maclin€residenceÏon€the€day€of€the€shooting€when,€at€about€7:15€A.M.,€the€defendant€stopped€toÏtalk€to€his€sons.€€Maclin€saw€the€defendant€drive€away€and€then€return,Ïfollowing€the€Boyce€vehicle.€€He€observed€the€defendant€fire€four€shotgun€blastsÏat€the€Boyce€vehicle.€€Later,€Maclin€overheard€the€defendant,€who€was€armed,Ïsay,€"I€done€killed€your€damn€sister;€so€call€the€m„f„police."€ÌÌà àà àDeputy€Mike€Forbes€of€the€Tipton€County€Sheriff's€DepartmentÏconducted€the€investigation.€€In€response€to€the€deputy's€interrogation,€theÏdefendant€made€the€following€admission:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àI€got€in€my€car€and€went€to€Jackie's€mother's€house.€€IÏgot€there€at€about€7:20€A.M.€€Jackie€wasn't€home.€€IÏtalked€to€my€sons.€€I€told€them€that€I€wouldn't€beÏaround€for€them€anymore.€€I€knew€I€œwas€going›€lookingÏfor€Jackie€and€I€was€going€to€kill€her€because€I€hadÏtold€her€several€times€that€if€I€ever€caught€her€withÏanother€man€that€I€was€going€to€kill€her.€€After€I€left€herÏmother's€house,€I€stopped€on€the€side€of€the€road€andÏloaded€my€shotgun.€€I€had€a€pistol€in€my€car,€also,€butÏit€always€stayed€loaded.€€I€started€down€the€roadÏgoing€to€look€for€Jackie€when€I€met€her€in€a€car€thatÏwas€driven€by€Charlie€Boyce.€€I€...€chased€them€to€herÏmother's€house.€€They€pulled€in€the€driveway.€€IÏstopped€my€car€in€the€road€in€front€of€the€house€andÏshot€at€their€car.€€They€took€off€driving€behind€theÏhouse....€€I€shot€at€them€again€when€they€were€goingÏdown€the€road.€€I€got€in€my€car€and€started€backingÏup€in€the€road.€€Their€car€had€quit€on€them,€and€theyÍhad€gotten€out€of€the€car€and€started€running€acrossÏthe€yard.€€I€got€out€of€my€car€and€was€chasing€them.€ÏI€was€carrying€my€shotgun.€€They€ran€to€the€back€ofÏBilly€Dowell's€house....€€When€I€came€around€theÏcorner€of€the€house,€Jackie€was€on€the€deck€fixing€toÏgo€in€back€of€the€house.€€I€shot€her€in€the€leg€first€andÏshe€fell.€€I€shot€her€again€after€she€fell.€€I€don'tÏremember€how€many€more€times€I€shot.€€She€neverÏsaid€anything€to€me.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€testified€at€trial€that€he€and€the€victim€hadÏexperienced€several€problems€associated€with€marital€infidelity.€€He€claimed€thatÏhe€had€contracted€gonorrhea€from€the€victim€and,€after€their€separation,€that€heÏhad€tried€to€commit€suicide.€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€had€just€ended€hisÏrelationship€with€Robin€Blevins,€one€which€had€produced€two€children,€when€heÏand€the€victim,€only€a€few€days€before€the€murder,€discussed€trying€to€get€backÏtogether.€€The€defendant€described€himself€as€very€upset€on€the€day€of€theÏmurder.€€He€claimed€that€his€heart€was€broken€and€that€he€was€out€of€his€mind.€€ÌÌà@ àIÌà àà àOn€appeal,€€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€ofÏthe€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawn€therefrom.€ÏòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832€(Tenn.€1978).€€This€court€may€neitherÏreweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence.€€òòIdóó.€at€836.€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€itsÍinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€jury.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859Ï(Tenn.€1956).€€The€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€given€their€testimony,Ïand€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€matters€entrustedÏexclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€A€conviction€may€be€set€aside€only€when€this€courtÏfinds€that€the€"evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€ofÏguilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€ÌÌà àà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€œ39„13„202(a)(1)€(1991)€defines›€firstÏdegree€murder€as€"an€intentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing€of€another."€ÏA€"'deliberate€act'"€is€"one€performed€with€a€cool€purpose"€and€a€"'[p]remeditatedÏact'"€is€one€implemented€"after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment...."€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€œ39„13„201(b)€(1991).›€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defense€bases€its€claim€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€toÏsupport€first€degree€murder€in€great€measure€upon€testimony€by€Boyce€that€theÏdefendant,€while€firing€the€shots,€had€acted€"like€he€had€gone€crazy€orÏsomething."€€The€defense€argues€that€he€could€be€guilty€of€nothing€more€thanÏsecond€degree€murder€because€there€was€no€evidence€to€indicate€that€theÏdefendant's€passions€had€cooled€between€the€time€he€had€seen€the€victim€withÍBoyce€and€when€the€fatal€shots€were€fired.€€ÌÌà àà àOur€statute€defines€"deliberate€act"€and€"premeditated€act"Ïseparately.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„13„201(b)(1),€(2)€(1991).›€€The€former€is€"oneÏperformed€with€a€cool€purpose,"€and€the€latter€is€"one€done€after€the€exercise€ofÏreflection€and€judgment."€€òòIdóó.€€In€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992),Ïthe€supreme€court€held€that€deliberation€requires€some€time€interval€between€theÏdecision€to€kill€and€the€act€itself:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àIt€is€consistent€with€the€murder€statute€and€withÏcase€law€in€Tennessee€to€instruct€the€jury€in€a€first„degree€murder€case€that€no€specific€period€of€timeÏneed€elapse€between€the€defendant's€formulation€ofÏthe€design€to€kill€and€the€execution€of€that€plan,€butÏwe€conclude€that€it€is€prudent€to€abandon€anÏinstruction€that€tells€the€jury€that€"premeditation€may€beÏformed€in€an€instant."...€€[I]t€is€now€abundantly€clearÏthat€the€deliberation€necessary€to€establish€first„degreeÏmurder€òòcannotóó€be€formed€in€an€instant.ÌÌÓÓ836€S.W.2d€at€543€(emphasis€in€original);€òòseeóó€òòEverett€v.€Stateóó,€528€S.W.2d€25,Ï28„29€(Tenn.€œ1975)€(Brock,›€œJ.,›€dissenting).€€We€interpret€that€holding€to€requireÏproof€that€the€offense€was€committed€upon€reflection,€"without€passion€orÏprovocation,"€and€otherwise€free€from€the€influence€of€excitement.€€ÌÌà àà àOnce€a€homicide€has€been€established,€it€is€presumed€to€beÏsecond€degree€murder.€€òòWitt€v.€Stateóó,€46€Tenn.€5,€8€(1868),€òòoverruled€on€otherÍgroundsóó,€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€491€S.W.2d€359,€362€(Tenn.€1973).€€The€stateÏmust€prove€both€premeditation€and€deliberation€in€order€to€elevate€the€offenseÏfrom€second€to€first€degree€murder.€€òòBailey€v.€Stateóó,€479€S.W.2d€829,€833€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1972).ÌÌà àà àUsing€òòBrownóó€as€guidance,€premeditation€is,€stated€simply,€theÏprocess€of€thinking€about€a€murder€before€doing€it.€€Deliberation€is€present€whenÏthe€circumstances€suggest€that€the€murderer€reflected€upon€the€manner€andÏconsequences€of€his€act;€the€circumstances€must€suggest€that€the€advancedÏthought€process,€the€premeditation,€took€place€in€a€cool€mental€state.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),Ïour€court€quoted€portions€of€a€treatise€analyzing€a€distinction€between€first€andÏsecond€degree€murder;€that€authority€provided€some€insight€into€the€nature€ofÏproof€required€before€a€jury€might€properly€infer€the€elements€of€deliberation€andÏpremeditation:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€facts€about€how€and€what€defendant€did€prior€toÏthe€actual€killing€which€show€he€was€engaged€inÏactivity€directed€toward€the€killing,€that€is€òòplanningóóÏactivity;€(2)€facts€about€the€defendant's€priorÏrelationship€and€conduct€with€the€victim€from€whichÏòòmotiveóó€may€be€inferred;€and€(3)€facts€about€the€òònatureÏof€the€killingóó€from€which€it€may€be€inferred€that€theÏmanner€of€killing€was€so€particular€and€exacting€thatÍthe€defendant€must€have€intentionally€killed€accordingÏto€a€preconceived€design.ÌÌÓÓ(quoting€2€œW.€LaFave›€and€œA.€Scott,›€òòSubstantive€Criminal€Lawóó,€ðð€7.7€at€239Ïœ(1986)€(emphasis›€in€original)).€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€defendant€acknowledged€that€he€had€warned€the€victimÏthat€he€would€kill€her€if€she€were€unfaithful.€€There€was€testimony€that€when€heÏwas€unable€to€reach€her€by€telephone,€he€went€to€her€residence€to€find€her;Ïupon€learning€of€her€whereabouts,€the€defendant,€according€to€his€pretrialÏstatement,€told€his€sons€that€he€intended€to€kill€the€victim.€€Immediately€afterward,Ïhe€loaded€his€shotgun€and€œbegan›€to€look€for€the€victim.€€There€was€testimonyÏthat€he€stalked€the€Boyce€vehicle,€got€out€of€his€car,€and€then€fired€a€shot€intoÏone€of€the€tires.€€Afterward,€the€defendant€drove€toward€the€disabled€BoyceÏvehicle,€stopped,€and€fired€at€least€three€shots€into€the€victim.€€There€was€aÏpause€between€the€first€and€second€shots.€€When€the€defendant€saw€theÏvictim's€brother,€he€admitted€the€killing€and€asked€him€to€call€the€police.€€ÌÌà àà àWhile€conceding€that€there€was€evidence€of€anger,€perhaps€evenÏjealousy€and€passion,€this€court€must€conclude€that€there€was€plenty€ofÏcircumstantial€evidence€from€which€a€rational€jury€could€have€concluded€that€theÏdefendant€not€only€planned€his€course€of€action€but€intentionally€andÍpurposefully€implemented€that€plan.€€The€evidence€is,€therefore,€sufficient.€ÌÌà@ àIIÌà àà àBefore€the€selection€of€the€jury,€the€trial€judge€inquired€if€the€state€orÏthe€defense€had€any€objections€to€the€following€procedure:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€way€I€normally€do€jury€selection,€with€theÏagreement€of€both€the€State€and€the€defendant,€wouldÏbe€to€call€twenty„two€names,€pick€them€at€random€œ....€ÏThe›€...€first€twelve€would€sit€in€the€jury€box,€the€nextÏten€would€sit€on€the€front€two€rows.€€All€twenty„twoÏwould€be€questioned€at€one€time....ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€State€would€then€have€the€opportunity€to€askÏquestions€first,€then€the€defendant.€€Then,€challengesÏwould€be€made€to€the€twelve€in€the€jury€box.€€YouÏcould€challenge€one€or€more€of€the€twelve,€until€you€runÏout€of€challenges.€€The€next€person€in€line€would€beÏthe€person€that€would€take€the€seat€of€the€personÏexcused,€so€that€you've€already€had€an€opportunity€toÏquestion€everyone....€€If€you€challenge€one€of€theÏtwelve,€you€do€not€accept€that€other€eleven€until€youÏrun€out€of€challenges.€€You€can€challenge€any€of€theÏtwelve.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€defendant,€represented€by€new€counsel€on€appeal,€complainsÏthat€the€procedure€utilized€by€the€trial€court,€violated€Rule€24(c),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.ÏP.:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò òPeremptory€Challenge€and€Procedure€forÏExercising.€€ó óAfter€twelve€prospective€jurors€haveÏbeen€passed€for€cause,€counsel€will€submitÍsimultaneously€and€in€writing,€to€the€trial€judge,€theÏname€of€any€juror€either€counsel€elects€to€challengeÏperemptorily.€€Upon€each€submission€each€counselÏshall€submit€either€a€challenge€or€a€blank€sheet€ofÏpaper.€€Neither€party€shall€make€known€the€fact€thatÏthe€party€has€not€challenged.€€Replacement€jurors€willÏthen€be€examined€for€cause€and,€after€passed,€Ïcounsel€will€again€submit€simultaneously,€and€inÏwriting,€to€the€trial€judge€the€name€of€any€juror€counselÏelects€to€challenge€peremptorily.€€This€procedure€willÏbe€followed€until€a€full€jury€has€been€selected€andÏaccepted€by€counsel.€€Peremptory€challenges€may€beÏdirected€to€any€member€of€the€jury€and€counsel€shallÏnot€be€limited€to€replacement€jurors.€€Alternate€jurors€willÏbe€selected€in€the€same€manner.€€The€trial€judge€willÏkeep€a€list€of€those€challenged€and,€if€the€same€juror€isÏchallenged€by€both€parties,€each€will€be€charged€withÏthe€challenge.€€The€trial€judge€shall€not€disclose€to€anyÏjuror€the€identity€of€the€party€challenging€the€juror.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€865€S.W.2d€455,€458€(Tenn.€1993),€ourÏsupreme€court€ruled€that€"close€adherence€to€the€procedure€prescribed€by€Tenn.ÏR.€Crim.€P.€24(c)€is€mandatory."€€It€also€ruled,€however,€that€the€burden€was€onÏthe€defendant€"to€prove€prejudice€or€purposeful€discrimination€in€the€selection€of€aÏjury."€€òòIdóó.€at€458.€€It€determined€that€prejudice€could€œnot€be€›€œpresumed.€€òòIdóó.;€òòseeóó›ÏòòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€539€(Tenn.€1993).€€ÌÌà àà àIt€is€our€view€that€the€deviation€from€the€prescribed€procedure,€aÏdeviation€that€met€with€the€approval€of€defense€counsel€at€trial,€did€not€prejudiceÍthe€judicial€process.€€While€the€rule€in€òòColemanóó€has€been€considered€mandatory,Ïthe€supreme€court€did€rule€that€the€deviation€from€the€rule€in€òòColemanóó€qualified€asÏharmless€error.€€We€are€unable€to€distinguish€this€case€from€that€result.œ× ƒ# ××  ×›ÌÌà@ àIIIÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€the€trial€court€providedÏ"contradictory,€confusing,€and€incomplete"€supplementary€instructions€on€theÏelements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€The€original€instruction€on€theÏdefinition€of€first€degree€murder€required€the€state€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonableÍdoubt€the€following€essential€elements:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)à àthat€the€defendant€unlawfully€killed€the€allegedÏvictim;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)à àthat€the€defendant€acted€intentionally.€€A€personÏacts€intentionally€with€respect€to€the€nature€of€theÏconduct€or€to€a€result€of€the€conduct€when€it€is€theÏperson's€conscientious€objective€or€desire€to€engage€inÏthe€conduct€or€cause€the€result;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)à àthat€the€killing€was€deliberate.€€A€deliberate€actÏis€one€performed€with€a€cool€purpose;€and€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)à àthat€the€killing€was€premeditated.€€AÏpremeditated€act€is€one€done€after€the€exercise€ofÏreflection€and€judgment.€€Premeditation€means€that€theÏintent€to€kill€must€have€been€formed€prior€to€the€actÏitself.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àIt€is€not€necessary€that€the€purpose€to€kill€preexist€inÏthe€mind€of€the€accused€for€any€definite€period€of€time.€ÏIt€is€sufficient€that€it€preceded€the€act,€however€shortÏthe€interval,€as€long€as€it€was€the€result€of€reflectionÏand€judgment.€€The€mental€state€of€the€accused€at€theÏtime€he€allegedly€decided€to€kill€must€be€carefullyÏconsidered€in€order€to€determine€whether€the€accusedÏwas€sufficiently€free€from€excitement€and€passion€asÏto€be€capable€of€premeditation.€€If€the€design€to€killÏwas€formed€with€deliberation€and€premeditation,€it€isÏimmaterial€that€the€accused€may€have€been€in€a€stateÏof€passion€or€excitement€when€the€design€was€carriedÏinto€effect.ÌÌà8 àà8 àFurthermore,€premeditation€could€be€found€if€theÏdecision€to€kill€is€first€formed€during€the€heat€of€passion,Ïbut€the€accused€commits€the€act€after€the€passionÏhas€subsided.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àDuring€the€deliberations,€the€jury€returned€to€open€court€and€askedÏthe€trial€judge€to€give€further€instructions€on€premeditation.€€It€reread€the€quotedÏportion€of€the€instruction€relating€to€premeditation.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€should€have€reread€theÏinstructions€on€all€degrees€of€homicide,€instead€of€emphasizing€the€first€degreeÏmurder€instruction.€€œHe›€insists€that€the€trial€court€should€have€supplemented€theÏdefinition€of€deliberation€and€premeditation€with€an€instruction€that€required€theÏjury€to€find€"that€the€offense€was€committed€upon€reflection,€without€passion€orÏprovocation,€and€otherwise€free€from€the€influence€of€excitement."€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€542„43€(Tenn.€1992).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€made€no€objections€to€the€instructions€at€trial.€€TheÏmotion€for€new€trial€did€not€include€this€as€a€ground€for€relief.€€Defense€counsel€atÏtrial€reviewed€the€jury€charge€and€was€amenable€to€its€content.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€3(e),ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.;€Rule€36,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€€Moreover,€the€charge€comportsÏwith€the€law€governing€first€degree€murder.€€The€defendant€has€been€unable€toÏsubstantiate€his€claim€that€the€instructions,€in€that€regard,€were€contradictory,Ïconfusing,€or€incomplete.€€When€the€jury€sought€supplemental€instructions,€theÏquestion€pertained€to€premeditation€only,€an€element€present€in€no€other€grade€ofÍhomicide€than€first€degree€murder.€€In€our€view,€the€trial€court€acted€appropriately.ÌÌà@ àIVÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€trial€judge€committed€error€byÏfailing€to€charge€the€jury€on€the€range€of€punishment€for€the€lesser€includedÏoffenses€of€first€degree€murder.€€He€points€out€that€both€sides€requested€theÏcharge.€€At€the€time€of€the€charges,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201€provided€inÏpart€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIn€all€contested€criminal€cases,€...€upon€the€motion€ofÏeither€party,€filed€with€the€court€prior€to€the€selection€ofÏthe€jury,€the€court€shall€charge€the€possible€penaltiesÏfor€the€offense€charged€and€all€lesser€includedÏoffenses.€€ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„201(b)€(1991).›ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àTrial€counsel€for€the€defendant€chose€not€to€seek€a€charge€on€theÏrange€of€punishment€for€second€degree€murder€and€voluntary€manslaughter.€ÏThe€record€demonstrates€that€the€defense€asked€the€court€not€to€instruct€the€juryÏon€the€range€of€punishment€for€second€degree€murder€and€voluntaryÏmanslaughter.€€In€òòState€v.€Cookóó,€816€S.W.2d€œ322,€326€(Tenn.›€1991),€ourÏsupreme€court€observed€that€the€jury's€knowledge€of€how€lengthy€a€sentenceÏmight€be€on€the€greatest€possible€offense€generally€inures€to€the€benefit€of€theÍdefendant;€that€very€rationale€may€have€been€the€strategy€employed€by€trialÏcounsel€when€he€elected€that€the€jury€not€be€informed€of€the€punishment€for€theÏlesser€included€offenses.€€Under€those€circumstances,€the€application€of€theÏplain€error€doctrine€would€be€inappropriate.€€We€find€no€error.ÌÌà@ àVÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€judge€failed€toÏindependently€exercise€its€duties€as€thirteenth€juror.€€That€assertion€is€madeÏupon€the€following€observation€by€the€trial€judge:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€court€notes€that€two€separate€juries€have€heardÏthis€case,€and€both€juries,€twenty„four€people,€haveÏdetermined€the€defendant€to€be€guilty€of€first€degreeÏmurder€of€the€victim.€€The€court€concurs€in€that€finding.€€ÌÌà àà àRule€33(f),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€provides€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àà8 àò òNew€Trial€Where€Verdict€is€Against€the€Weight€ofÏthe€Evidence.ó ó€€The€trial€court€may€grant€a€new€trialÏfollowing€a€verdict€of€guilty€if€it€disagrees€with€the€juryÏabout€the€weight€of€the€evidence.€€If€the€trial€courtÏgrants€a€new€trial€because€the€verdict€is€contrary€toÏthe€weight€of€the€evidence,€upon€request€of€eitherÏparty€the€new€trial€shall€be€conducted€by€a€differentÏjudge.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€all€criminal€cases€involving€a€trial€by€jury,€the€trial€judge€has€theÏduty€to€act€as€the€thirteenth€juror€by€either€approving€or€disapproving€the€verdict.€ÍòòSeeóó€òòHelton€v.€Stateóó,€547€S.W.2d€564,€566€(Tenn.€1977).€€Although€that€rule€wasÏabandoned€by€this€state€between€1978€and€the€1991€amendment€to€the€RulesÏof€Criminal€Procedure,€our€supreme€court€has€again€approved€the€propriety€ofÏthis€function€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€Enochsóó,€823€S.W.2d€539,€540€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€896€S.W.2d€119,€122€(Tenn.€1995),€our€supremeÏcourt€held€that€"Rule€33(f)€imposes€upon€a€trial€judge€the€mandatory€duty€toÏserve€as€the€thirteenth€juror€in€every€criminal€case,€and€that€approval€by€the€trialÏjudge€of€the€verdict€as€a€thirteenth€juror€is€a€necessary€prerequisite€to€theÏimposition€of€a€valid€judgment."€€In€òòState€v.€Moatsóó,€906€S.W.2d€431,€434€(Tenn.Ï1995),€our€supreme€court€observed€that€"the€purpose€of€the€thirteenth€juror€rule€isÏto€be€a€'safeguard€...€against€a€miscarriage€of€justice€by€the€jury'"€(quoting€òòStateÏv.€Johnsonóó,€692€S.W.2d€412,€415€(Tenn.€œ1985)€(Drowota,›€J.,€dissenting)).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€state,€the€trial€judge€had€the€duty€to€ascertain€whether€theÏweight€of€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€verdict.€€"[A]n€explicitÏstatement€of€approval€on€the€record€is€not€necessary,€and€when€the€trial€judgeÏsimply€overrules€a€motion€for€new€trial,€an€appellate€court€may€presume€that€theÏtrial€judge€has€approved€the€jury's€verdict€as€the€thirteenth€juror."€€òòMoatsóó,€906ÍS.W.2d€at€434.€€The€record€demonstrates€that€he€did€so.€€œThus,›€the€issue€hasÏno€merit.€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€Judge