ÿWPCW, …# VUNa %¯ 0 ñµU:¦ w@à 4 4 05C 0Dx 0J¼ 0T 0^Z 0h¸  0r( 0|š 0† 0œ 1u,U,¡ 0dÍU,1U>] B›U *¸B)âDC  AMNÑ› D3lŸÁ´ 0@uûµ3°~ãv~a#vÓß$ AO²*Æ+ 0DÇ+ D/ , B:,˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÉÞÍ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€XíèXXXÔÑ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular þDÿEDDÓ€»{s 3|x(å(3± $¤¤Ý ƒÞÍ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€XÜXXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òJulyÏ26,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó$$$$'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÓ  Óà àà àAccording€to€Vastbinder,€two€pieces€of€jewelry€and€a€billfold€wereÏfound€on€the€victim.Ì ·Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÓ  Óà àà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€evidence€failed€to€showÏð ðmalice,ðð€ð ðdesign,ðð€or€ð ðintent€to€kill.ðð€€As€noted€above,€second€degree€murder€requiresÏproof€of€a€knowing€killing.€€Thus,€the€appellantððs€contention€is€obviously€without€merit.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ñÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àWe€also€note€that€the€motion€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal€made€at€the€endÏof€the€Stateððs€proof€was,€in€effect,€waived€when€the€appellant€elected€to€put€forwardÏevidence€on€his€own€behalf.€€òòSeeóó€òòMathis€v.€Stateóó,€590€S.W.2d€449,€453€(Tenn.€1979);ÏòòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€549€S.W.2d€943,€945€(Tenn.€1977).Ì )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€court€said€that€the€instruction€should€be€part€of€the€mainÏcharge€and€then€repeated€in€the€event€of€a€deadlocked€jury.€€òòIdóó.€at€145.Ì tÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÓ  Óà àà àWe€also€note€that€the€trial€court,€out€of€the€juryððs€presence,€saidÏthat€the€division€in€the€jury€ð ðmay€be€eleven€to€one....ðð€€Although€it€is€not€clear€from€theÏrecord€how€the€court€discerned€the€information,€we€stress€that€inquiry€into€the€juryððsÏnumerical€division€ð ðis€not€proper€practice.ðð€€òòKerseyóó,€525€S.W.2d€at€141.€€We€do€notÏbelieve€that€this€comment€alone€in€any€way€alters€our€conclusions€with€respect€to€thisÏissue.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ ° ÑÓÓÑ7€ÜXXdædÈ7Ñ›à@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÙ€€ÙœßL€()';+'h|½` à. `€€Lß›à@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌà@ àóóMARCH€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àNo.€02C01„9509„CC„00269ÌÌà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà à*à àOBION€COUNTYÌÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€William€B.ÏAcreeÌÌJAMES€CECIL€BAXTER,à àà à*à à(Second€DegreeÏMurder)ÌÌà àà àAPPELLANT.à à*ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€AppelleeóóÌÌCharles€S.€Kellyà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ802€Troy€Avenueà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&ÏReporterÌP.O.€Box€507à àà àà àà à450€James€RobertsonÏParkwayÌDyersburg,€TN€38025à àà àà àNashville,€TNÏ37243„0493ÌÌœand›à àà àà àà àà àà àEllen€H.€Pollackà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€AttorneyÏGeneralÌœCharles€S.€Kelly,€Jr.›à àà àà à450€James€RobertsonÏParkwayÌœ802€Troy€Avenue›à àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÏ37243„0493ÌœP.O.€Box€507›ÌœDyersburg,€TN€38025›à àà àà àThomas€A.€ThomasÌœ(at€trial€only)›à àà àœ›à àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€T.€CannonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€218Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àUnion€City,€TN€38261ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHeard€CritchlowÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€218€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àUnion€City,€TN€38261ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌà àà àThe€appellant,€James€Cecil€Baxter,€was€convicted€of€the€second€degreeÏmurder€of€Clyde€R.€Nichols.€€As€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€the€appellant€wasÏsentenced€to€twenty„five€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€On€appeal,€he€raisesÏsix€issues:€€(a)€€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict;€(b)€€thatÏthe€trial€court€erred€€in€failing€to€grant€a€judgment€of€acquittal;€(c)€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€ruling€that€the€State€could€impeach€the€appellant€with€a€prior€conviction€forÏincest;€(d)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€giving€a€ð ðcoerciveðð€instruction€to€the€jury€during€itsÍdeliberation;€(e)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€a€State€witness€to€testify€that€hisÏautopsy€report€was€separate€from€a€toxicology€report;€and€(f)€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏimposing€an€excessive€sentence.ÌÌà àà àWe€conclude€that€there€is€no€reversible€error€in€the€record.€€The€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌà àà àJust€after€twelve€oððclock€noon€on€December€28,€1994,€Deputy€SheriffÏJerry€Vastbinder€responded€to€a€call€at€the€J.W.€Cole€residence€in€Obion€County,ÏTennessee.€€When€he€arrived,€paramedics€were€attending€to€the€victim,€Clyde€R.ÏNichols,€who€was€lying€in€a€ð ðpool€of€blood.ðð€€Vastbinder€found€ð ðtraces€of€bloodðð€on€aÏconcrete€patio€approximately€thirty€yards€from€the€victim.€€Vastbinder€also€found€a€fourÏinch,€lock€blade€knife€on€the€opposite€side€of€the€house.€€The€appellant,€who€was€stillÏat€the€scene,€acknowledged€that€he€used€the€knife€to€stab€the€victim.€€The€appellantÏsaid€that€the€victim€ð ðcame€at€him€with€a€ten€inch€sheetrock€knife€and€that€he€[theÏappellant]€pulled€his€knife€and€stabbed€[the€victim].ðð€€The€appellant€said€that€ð ðat€thatÏpoint...he€didnððt€remember€anything...,€[and]€that€he€just€lost€his€cool.ðð€€VastbinderÏtestified€that€he€did€not€find€a€knife€or€weapon€on€or€near€the€victim.× ƒ+ ××  ×€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€was€arrested€and€interviewed€later€in€the€day.€€He€toldÏofficers€that€he€and€the€victim€had€been€partners€in€a€contracting€business€for€aboutÏten€years.€They€recently€had€been€feuding.€€The€appellant€told€officers€that€on€theÏprevious€day,€December€27,€he€swung€a€hammer€at€the€victim€during€an€argument.€ÏOn€December€28,€the€victim€and€Sammy€Driver€arrived€at€the€Cole€residence€toÏretrieve€the€victimððs€tools.€€An€argument€ensued€between€the€appellant€and€the€victim.€ÏThe€appellant€reiterated€that€the€victim€threatened€him€with€a€ten€inch€sheetrock€knife.€ÏThe€appellant€stabbed€the€victim,€washed€the€blood€from€the€knife,€and€gave€the€knifeÏto€Johnny€Whitlow,€a€co„worker.€€ÌÌà àà àSammy€Driver€testified€that€he€accompanied€the€victim,€his€brother„in„law,€to€the€Cole€residence€to€help€the€victim€retrieve€his€tools€from€the€appellant.€ÏWhen€they€arrived,€the€appellant€and€Johnny€Whitlow€were€working€inside€the€home.€ÏAccording€to€Driver,€the€appellant€and€the€victim€argued€about€the€tools€and€engagedÏin€ð ða€bunch€of€shouting€and€cussing.ðð€€€At€one€point,€the€victim€and€Driver€gatheredÏsome€tools€and€took€them€to€Driverððs€truck.€€Thereafter,€the€victim€went€back€inside€theÏhouse€and€argued€with€the€appellant€over€a€shop€vacuum.€€The€victim€said:€ð ðWell[,]€ifÏyou€feel€that€way€about€it,€just€come€on€out€here€in€the€road€and€fight€like€a€man.ðð€€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€followed€the€victim€out€of€the€house,€pulled€a€knife€from€hisÏleft€pocket,€and€stabbed€the€victim€in€the€stomach.€€Driver€tried€to€grab€the€appellantððsÏarm,€and€he€and€Whitlow€restrained€the€appellant€long€enough€for€the€victim€to€breakÍaway.€€The€victim€ran€about€thirty€yards€before€falling€face€forward.€€The€appellantÏchased€the€victim,€rolled€him€over,€and€ð ðwith€both€hands...rammed€the€knife€into€[theÏvictimððs]€chest.ðð€€Driver€testified€that€the€victim€never€tried€to€hit€the€appellant.€€At€oneÏpoint,€the€victim€had€picked€up€a€hammer€inside€the€house€but€set€it€down.€€Driver€hadÏcarried€several€tools€to€his€truck,€including€a€mud€pan,€a€six€inch€taping€knife,€and€a€tenÏinch€taping€or€sheetrock€knife.€€He€testified€that€he€did€not€see€the€victim€in€possessionÏof€a€knife€or€any€other€weapon.ÌÌà àà àDr.€OððBrien€Cleary€Smith,€Assistant€Medical€Examiner€for€Shelby€CountyÏand€Deputy€Chief€Medical€Examiner€for€West€Tennessee,€performed€an€autopsy€onÏthe€victim€on€December€29,€1994.€€Smith€determined€that€the€victim€died€from€ð ðmultipleÏstab€wounds.ðð€€He€testified:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€most€significant€stab€wounds€were€in€the€left€upperÏchest€and€the€right€upper€quadrant€of€the€abdomen....TheÏwounds€to€the...left€upper€chest€went€through€his€left€lungÏand€into€the€heart.€€Although€there€was€a€single€large€defectÏin€his€skin,€or€wound€in€his€skin,€there€were€separate€woundÏpaths€through€the€heart€and€three€separate€injuries€to€theÏlung€in€this€upper€chest€wound.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€wound€in€his€right€upper€quadrant€of€his€abdomen€wentÏinto€the€liver,€and€there€were€a€total€of€two€wounds€there.ÌÌÓÓSmith€also€testified€that€the€victim€had€incise€wounds,€cuts,€and€abrasions€to€hisÏfingers,€hands,€and€forearms;€he€called€these€injuries€ð ðdefensive€wounds.ððÌÌà àà àSmith€testified€that€the€victimððs€blood€and€urine€samples€were€sent€to€theÏUniversity€of€Tennessee€Toxicology€Laboratory.€€An€analysis€revealed€1.6€microgramsÏper€milliliters€of€methamphetamine€in€the€victimððs€blood.€€Smith€testified€that€theÏquantity€of€methamphetamine,€a€controlled€substance,€was€ð ðabove€therapeutic€levelððÏbut€unrelated€to€the€cause€of€death.€€Smith€acknowledged€that€methamphetamine€is€aÏpotential€drug€of€abuse€that€can€cause€restlessness,€confusion,€anxiety,€hostility,€andÏsimilar€side€effects.€€However,€Smith€had€concerns€with€the€labððs€findings.€€First,€the€labÏdid€not€distinguish€ð ðDðð€methamphetamine,€which€is€a€tightly€controlled,€potent€form€ofÏthe€drug,€from€ð ðLðð€methamphetamine,€which€is€commonly€found€in€nasal€spray.€ÏSecond,€the€lab€did€not€follow€procedures€to€safeguard€against€false€positive€readings.€ÏAs€a€result,€Smith€concluded€that€the€effect€of€the€methamphetamine€on€the€victimððsÏbehavior,€if€any,€could€not€be€determined.ÌÌà àà àJohnny€Whitlow€testified€on€behalf€of€the€appellant.€€He€was€workingÏinside€the€house€with€the€appellant€when€the€victim€and€Driver€arrived.€€The€victimÏcalled€the€appellant€ð ðvulgar€namesðð€and€also€said€ð ðI€ought€to€show€you€what€a€damnÏhammer€can€do€to€a€man.ðð€€The€victim€picked€up€a€hammer€but€set€it€down.€€He€and€theÏappellant€continued€to€ð ðcuss€at€one€another.ðð€€The€victim€told€the€appellant€ð ðto€comeÏout€and€fightðð€but€the€appellant€refused.€€The€victim€took€some€tools€to€Driverððs€truckÏand€then€returned€to€the€house€acting€ð ðlike€he€was€fixing€to€hit€[the€appellant].ðð€€ÏWhitlow€then€heard€Driver€yell€something€about€a€knife.€€After€the€appellant€stabbedÏthe€victim€in€the€stomach,€Whitlow€tried€to€pull€the€appellant€off€the€victim.€€The€victimÍran€across€the€yard.€€The€appellant€broke€loose,€chased€the€victim,€and€ð ðburied€a€knifeÏinto€[the€victimððs]€chest....ððÌÌà àà àWhitlow€testified€that€he€never€saw€the€victim€strike€the€appellant,€thoughÏhe€appeared€poised€to€do€so.€€Whitlow€did€not€see€a€knife€or€a€weapon€in€the€victimððsÏpossession.€€After€the€stabbing,€the€appellant€said€he€ð ðcouldnððt€believe€what€he€did,ððÏand€he€handed€the€knife€to€Whitlow.€€Whitlow€conceded€that€he€testified€at€theÏpreliminary€hearing€he€saw€the€victim€throw€a€punch€at€the€appellant.€€Whitlow€alsoÏacknowledged€that€he€had€previously€testified€he€ð ðwasnððt€capable€of€seeingðð€theÏincident€and€that€the€victim€ð ðcould€have€had€something€in€his€left€hand.ðð€€On€redirectÏexamination,€Whitlow€reiterated€that€he€never€saw€the€victim€with€a€knife.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Kris€Sperry,€Deputy€Chief€Medical€Examiner€for€Fulton€County,ÏGeorgia,€also€testified€on€behalf€of€the€appellant.€€Sperry€reviewed€the€autopsy€andÏtoxicology€reports€regarding€the€victim.€€He€testified€that€methamphetamine€has€a€veryÏhigh€abuse€potential€and€is€tightly€controlled.€€Although€there€are€some€limited€medicalÏuses,€high€levels€of€methamphetamine€may€cause€irritability,€rage,€anger,€or€hostility.€ÏSperry€said€that€the€level€of€methamphetamine€found€in€the€victimððs€system€was€ð ðthreeÏtimes€the€high€side€of€the€abuser€level.ðð€€ÌÌà àà àIn€rebuttal,€Dr.€Halbert€Dodd,€Medical€Examiner€for€Obion€County,Ïtestified€that€he,€like€Dr.€Smith,€had€concerns€with€the€accuracy€of€the€University€ofÍTennessee€laboratoryððs€findings€as€to€the€level€of€methamphetamine.€€He€questionedÏthe€labððs€equipment,€its€failure€to€implement€quality€controls€to€ensure€against€falseÏpositive€readings,€and€its€failure€to€distinguish€between€ð ðDðð€and€ð ðLðð€methamphetamine.ÌÌà@ àò òIÌó óà àà àWhen€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€standard€forÏreview€by€an€appellate€court€is€whether,€after€considering€the€evidence€in€a€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307,€318„19€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.€App.ÏP.€13(e).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€and€to€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawnÏtherefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€836€(Tenn.€1978).€€In€determining€theÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€òòidóó.,€and€this€courtÏdoes€not€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,Ï199€Tenn.€298,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956).ÌÌà àà àSecond€degree€murder€is€ð ða€knowing€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„210(a)(1).€€A€person€ð ðacts€knowingly€with€respect€to€the€conduct€or€toÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€of€the€nature€of€theÏconduct€or€that€the€circumstances€exist.€€A€person€acts€knowingly€with€respect€to€aÏresult€of€the€personððs€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€that€the€conduct€is€reasonablyÍcertain€to€cause€the€result.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(b).€€The€evidenceÏoverwhelmingly€establishes€a€knowing€killing€in€this€case.€€The€appellant€and€theÏvictim€engaged€in€a€heated€dispute.€€The€victim,€who€both€eyewitnesses€said€wasÏunarmed,€challenged€the€appellant€to€fight.€€The€appellant€produced€a€knife€andÏstabbed€the€victim€in€the€stomach.€€When€the€victim€fled,€the€appellant€broke€free€fromÏDriver€and€Whitlow,€chased€the€victim,€rolled€him€over,€and€forcefully€stabbed€him€inÏthe€chest€by€holding€the€knife€with€both€hands.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellantððs€main€contention€is€that€the€offense€amounted€to€voluntaryÏmanslaughter,€that€is,€ð ðan€intentional€or€knowing€killing€of€another€in€a€state€of€passionÏproduced€by€adequate€provocation€sufficient€to€lead€a€reasonable€person€to€act€in€anÏirrational€manner.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„211(a).€€The€jury€was€charged€on€thisÏoffense,€but€convicted€the€appellant€of€second€degree€murder.€€As€we€have€described,Ïthe€evidence€was€sufficient€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€have€found€the€elements€of€theÏoffense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.× ƒ, ××  ×€€à àà àÌÌà àà àIn€a€related€issue,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€and€is€inconsistent€with€the€verdict.€€In€overruling€the€motion€for€a€new€trial,Ïhowever,€the€trial€court€said:€ð ðI€have€reviewed€the€evidence.€€I€am€satisfied€that€theÍverdict€is€supported€by€the€evidence.€€Therefore€I€would€overrule€all€grounds€allegingÏthe€evidence€to€be€insufficient.€€In€addition,€as€the€thirteenth€juror,€I€pass€upon€theÏevidence€and€find€that€the€verdict€is€supported€by€the€evidence.ðð€€The€trial€courtÏproperly€discharged€its€function€in€this€regard.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Moatsóó,€906€S.W.2d€431,Ï434€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€896€S.W.2d€119,€122€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€sum,€theÏappellant€is€not€entitled€to€relief.ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àà àThe€appellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motionÏfor€a€judgment€of€acquittal€at€the€end€of€the€Stateððs€proof€and€at€the€end€of€all€the€proof.€ÏHe€claims,€once€more,€that€the€State€failed€to€prove€the€elements€of€second€degreeÏmurder€and€that€the€evidence€supported€only€a€verdict€of€voluntary€manslaughter.€€TheÏState€maintains€that€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€were€correct.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€880€S.W.2d€720,€726€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€ourÏcourt€discussed€judgments€of€acquittal€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€CriminalÏProcedure€29:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€rule€empowers€the€trial€judge€to€direct€a€judgment€ofÏacquittal€when€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€warrant€aÏconviction€either€at€the€time€the€state€rests€or€at€theÏconclusion€of€all€the€evidence.€€At€the€point€the€motion€isÏmade,€the€trial€court€must€favor€the€state€with€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence,€including€all€reasonableÏinferences,€and€discard€any€countervailing€evidence.ÌÌÓÓòòSeeóó€òòalsoóóòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€836.€€As€we€outlined€in€the€precedingÏissue,€the€State€produced€sufficient€evidence€for€the€jury€to€have€found€the€keyÏelement€of€second€degree€murder,€i.e.,€a€knowing€killing€of€another.€€Thus,€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€err€in€overruling€the€appellantððs€motions.× ƒ. ××  ×ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌà àà àPrior€to€trial,€the€State€provided€notice€of€its€intent€to€impeach€theÏappellant€with€a€1989€felony€conviction€for€incest.€€The€appellant€filed€a€motion€inÏlimine€to€preclude€the€State€from€using€the€conviction;€he€argued€that€the€offense€wasÏnot€probative€of€credibility€and€that€it€was€unfairly€prejudicial.€€The€trial€court€overruledÏthe€motion€after€finding€ð ðthat€the€probative€value€on€...€credibility€outweigh[ed]€theÏunfair€or€prejudicial€effect€on€the€substantive€issues.ðð€€The€appellant€did€not€testify.€€OnÏappeal,€he€maintains€that€the€ruling€was€reversible€error.€€The€State,€of€course,Ïmaintains€that€the€ruling€was€correct.ÌÌà àà àUsing€a€conviction€to€impeach€the€accused€in€a€criminal€prosecution€isÏgoverned€by€Rule€609(a)(3),€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIf€the€witness€to€be€impeached€is€the€accused€in€a€criminalÏprosecution,€the€State€must€give€the€accused€reasonableÍwritten€notice€of€the€impeaching€conviction€before€trial,€andÏthe€court€upon€request€must€determine€that€the€convictionððsÏprobative€value€on€credibility€outweighs€its€unfair€prejudicialÏeffect€on€the€substantive€issues.€€The€court€may€rule€on€theÏadmissibility€of€such€proof€prior€to€the€trial€but€in€any€eventÏshall€rule€prior€to€the€testimony€of€the€accused.€€If€the€courtÏmakes€a€final€determination€that€such€proof€is€admissible€forÏimpeachment€purposes,€the€accused€need€not€actuallyÏtestify€at€the€trial€to€later€challenge€the€propriety€of€theÏdetermination.ÌÌÓÓIn€determining€whether€the€probative€value€outweighs€the€unfair€prejudicial€effect,€aÏtrial€court€should€(a)€ð ðassess€the€similarity€between€the€crime€on€trial€and€the€crimeÏunderlying€the€impeaching€convictionðð€and€(b)€ð ðanalyze€the€relevance€the€impeachingÏconviction€has€to€the€issue€of€credibility.ðð€€N.€Cohen,€D.€Paine,€&€S.€Sheppeard,ÏòòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€609.9€at€376€(3d€ed.€1995);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Farmeróó,Ï841€S.W.2d€837.€839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àà àThe€difficult€question€in€this€case€is€the€relevance€or€probative€value€of€anÏincest€conviction€to€the€issue€of€credibility.€€In€òòState€v.€Barnardóó,€899€S.W.2d€617,€622Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€our€court€construed€Rule€609(a)(3)€and€observed€that€theÏprobative€value€of€a€prior€sexual€battery€conviction€on€the€issue€of€credibility€wasÏð ðslight.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Steven€O.€Fordóó,€No.€01C01„9403„CC„00089€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Nashville,€Sept.€14,€1995)(aggravated€sexual€battery).€€Similarly,€specificÏinstances€of€sexual€conduct€have€been€held€not€to€be€probative€of€a€witnessððsÏtruthfulness€or€untruthfulness€under€the€similarly€worded€provisions€of€Rule€608.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Fordóó,€861€S.W.2d€846,€849€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€697ÍS.W.2d€366,€371€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985);€òòShockley€v.€Stateóó,€585€S.W.2d€645,€653Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978);€òòState€v.€Buford€E.€Gaiteróó,€No.€01C01„9407„CC„00245€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€March€22,€1996);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð608.6Ïat€354„55.€€ÌÌà àà àAbsent€specific€factual€findings€to€support€its€findings,€we€disagree€withÏthe€trial€courtððs€broadly€stated€conclusion€that€the€incest€conviction€was€probative€ofÏcredibility.€€Nonetheless,€we€conclude€that€the€appellant€has€failed€to€show€that€he€wasÏprejudiced€by€the€ruling.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€First,€the€appellant€did€not€make€anÏoffer€of€proof€to€preserve€the€issue€for€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,Ïðð609.9€at€377.€€Without€an€offer€of€proof€as€to€the€appellantððs€testimony,€we€are€unableÏto€assess€the€impact€of€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€òòIdóó.;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€642€S.W.2dÏ720,€724€(Tenn.€1982)(offer€of€proof€needed€for€appellate€court€to€assess€the€impact€ofÏa€ruling).€€ÌÌà àà àMoreover,€we€note€that€the€crux€of€the€appellantððs€defense„„€that€he€actedÏin€response€to€the€victimððs€aggressive€conduct„„€was€elicited€from€the€investigatingÏdetective.€€Vastbinder€testified€that€the€appellant€told€him€that€the€victim€had€attackedÏhim€with€a€ten€inch€sheetrock€knife,€and€that€the€appellant€essentially€had€acted€in€selfÏdefense.€€Vastbinder€also€testified€that€the€appellant€reiterated€his€self€defense€claimÏwhen€he€made€a€second€statement€following€his€arrest.€€The€jury€had€to€assess€theÏappellantððs€statements€in€light€of€the€remaining€evidence€of€guilt.€€NeitherÍeyewitnesses€saw€the€victim€in€possession€of€a€knife.€€The€appellant€stabbed€the€victimÏin€the€abdomen,€pursued€the€victim€for€approximately€thirty€yards,€rolled€him€onto€hisÏback,€and€stabbed€him€forcefully€in€the€chest.€€The€appellant€washed€the€blood€fromÏthe€knife€and€gave€it€to€Whitlow€to€discard.€€After€considering€all€of€the€evidence,€theÏjury€rejected€the€appellantððs€defense€and€convicted€the€appellant€of€second€degreeÏmurder.€ÌÌà àà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€conclude€that€the€appellant€has€not€shownÏthat€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jerry€Lee€Finchóó,€No.Ï02C01„9309„CC„00224€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€June€7,€1995),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóóÏòòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Harry€Garvin,€Jr.óó,€No.€02C01„9308„CC„00193€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Jackson,€Oct.€12,€1994).€€Accordingly,€he€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€thisÏground.ÌÌà@ àò òIVó óÌà àà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€gave€a€ð ðcoerciveðð€instruction€toÏthe€jury€during€its€deliberation.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€jury€began€deliberating€atÏ11:10€a.m.,€recessed€for€lunch€at€12:00€p.m.,€and€resumed€deliberating€at€1:22€p.m.€€AtÏ3:15€p.m.,€the€trial€judge€noted€that€ð ðthere€has€been€some€difficulty€in€the€jury€reachingÏa€verdict.ðð€€The€jury€had€apparently€informed€the€court€that€it€could€not€ð ðagree€on€any€ofÏthe€three€choices€given.ðð€€The€court€brought€the€jury€into€open€court€and€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àYouððve€actually€deliberated€a€relatively€short€period€of€time.€ÏThatððs€less€than€three€hours.€€Iððm€not„„donððt€know€how€longÏIððm€going€to€have€you€deliberate.€€It€could€go€to€tomorrow.€ÏAt€any€event,€Iððm€going€to€have€you€continue€to€deliberate.€ÏIððd€ask€that„„this€is€an€important€case.€€A€lot€of€time€and€effortÏhas€been€put€into€the€case.€€I€would€hope€that€you€wouldÏcontinue€and€attempt€to€come€to€a€verdict.€€In€any€event,€IððmÏgoing€to€discharge€you€to€continue€to€deliberate.ÌÓÓÌAt€3:38€p.m.,€the€jury€returned€with€a€verdict€of€guilty€as€to€second€degree€murder.ÌÌà àà àCiting€òòKersey€v.€Stateóó,€525€S.W.2d€139€(Tenn.€1975),€the€appellantÏargues€that€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€coerced€the€jury€into€returning€the€verdict.€€InÏòòKerseyóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€a€so„called€òòAllenóó€charge,€or€ð ðdynamiteðð€charge,Ïwould€no€longer€be€read€to€deadlocked€juries€in€Tennessee.€€The€òòAllenóó€charge€wasÏtaken€from€òòAllen€v.€United€Statesóó,€164€U.S.€492€(1896):ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]hat€although€the€verdict€must€be€the€verdict€of€eachÏindividual€juror,€and€not€a€mere€acquiescence€in€theÏconclusion€of€his€fellows,€yet€they€should€examine€theÏquestion€submitted€with€candor€and€with€a€proper€regardÏand€deference€to€the€opinions€of€each€other;€that€it€was€theirÏduty€to€decide€the€case€if€they€could€conscientiously€do€so;Ïthat€they€should€listen,€with€a€disposition€to€be€convinced,€toÏeach€otherððs€arguments;€that,€if€much€the€larger€numberÏwere€for€conviction,€a€dissenting€juror€should€considerÏwhether€his€doubt€was€a€reasonable€one€which€made€noÏimpression€upon€the€minds€of€so€many€men,€equallyÏhonest,€equally€intelligent€with€himself.€€If,€upon€the€otherÏhand,€the€majority€was€for€acquittal,€the€minority€ought€toÏask€themselves€whether€they€might€not€reasonably€doubtÏthe€correctness€of€a€judgment€which€was€not€concurred€inÏby€the€majority....ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€501.€€As€noted€in€òòKerseyóó,€the€supreme€court€had€adopted€a€version€of€the€òòAllenóóÏcharge€in€òòSimmons€v.€Stateóó,€198€Tenn.€587,€281€S.W.2d€487€(1955).€€AfterÏconsidering€a€number€of€cases€rejecting€such€a€charge,€the€supreme€court€followedÏsuit:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIn€our€view€the€òòAllenóó€charge€and€the€òòAllen„Simmonsóó€chargeÏoperate€to€embarrass,€impair€and€violate€the€constitutionalÏright€of€trial€by€jury.€€Any€undue€intrusion€by€the€trial€judgeÏinto€this€exclusive€province€of€the€jury€is€an€error€of€the€firstÏmagnitude....[W]hen€the€effort€to€secure€a€verdict€reachesÏthe€point€that€a€single€juror€may€be€coerced€intoÏsurrendering€view€conscientiously€entertained,€the€juryððsÏprovince€is€invaded€and€the€requirement€of€unanimity€isÏdiluted.€€We€view€these€charges€as€being€tantamount€to€aÏjudicially€mandated€jury€verdict€which€is€impermissibleÏunder€Tennessee€law.ÌÌÓÓòòKerseyóó,€525€S.W.2d€at€144.€€To€eliminate€the€risk€of€coercing€the€minority€to€yield€to€theÏmajority,€the€court€formulated€the€following€instruction,€which€derived€from€the€A.B.A.Ïstandards€relating€to€Trial€by€Jury,€Sec.€5.4:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€verdict€must€represent€the€considered€judgment€ofÏeach€juror.€€In€order€to€return€a€verdict,€it€is€necessary€thatÏeach€juror€agree€thereto.€€Your€verdict€must€be€unanimous.ÌÌà8 àà8 àIt€is€your€duty,€as€jurors,€to€consult€with€one€another€and€toÏdeliberate€with€a€view€to€reaching€an€agreement,€if€you€canÏdo€so€without€violence€to€individual€judgment.€€Each€of€youÏmust€decide€the€case€for€yourself,€but€do€so€only€after€anÏimpartial€consideration€of€the€evidence€with€your€fellowÏjurors.€€In€the€course€of€your€deliberations,€do€not€hesitate€toÏreexamine€you€own€view€and€change€your€opinion€ifÏconvinced€it€is€erroneous.€€But€do€not€surrender€you€honestÏconviction€as€to€the€weight€or€effect€of€evidence€solelyÏbecause€of€the€opinion€of€your€fellow€jurors,€or€for€the€mereÏpurpose€of€returning€a€verdict.ÌÌÓÓòòKerseyóó,€525€S.W.2d€at€144„45.€€The€court€also€noted€that€ð ð[s]trict€adherence€isÏexpected€and€variations€will€not€be€permissible.ðð€€òòIdóó.€At€145.× ƒ/ ××  ×ÌÌà àà àHere,€€the€court,€in€effect,€ordered€the€jury€to€continue€deliberating.€€It€didÏnot€direct€any€of€its€comments€to€jurors€in€the€minority,€nor€did€it€urge€such€jurors€toÏreevaluate€or€to€cede€his€or€her€views€to€those€of€the€majority.€€Similarly,€the€court€didÏnot€impose€a€deadline€on€the€jury€for€its€deliberation.€€We€believe€that€the€case€isÏsimilar€to€òòState€v.€Dickóó,€872€S.W.2d€938,€946€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€in€which€the€trialÏcourt€made€the€following€remarks€after€the€jury€announced€it€was€unable€to€reach€aÏverdict:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWell,€you€havenððt€been€out€that€long€really.€€We€donððt€needÏto€know€how€youððre€individually€split,€guilty€or€innocent,€butÏif€youððre€still€discussing€the€case,€and€you€need€to€discuss€it,Ïand€if€you€reach€a€point€that€you€just€absolutely€know€thatÏyouððre€not€going€to€be€able€to€do€anything,€thatððs€when€youÏneed€to€let€us€know.€€You€need€to€get€to€that€point,€or€to€theÏpoint€where€youððve€reached€a€verdict,€then€you€need€toÏcome€back,€either€way.€€But,€itððs€only€4€oððclock,€and€weððveÏgot€a€couple€or€three€good€hours€here€that€we€can€work€onÏthis,€and€have€plenty€of€time€today.€€So€you€all€take€yourÏtime€and€go€through€it€and€discuss€it,€look€at€the€charge€weÏhave€given€you€and€work€with€it,€because€thatððs€what€youððreÏsupposed€to€do.€€Youððre€supposed€to€discuss€it,€take€votesÏand€that€type€of€thing.€€If€you€will€all€do€that....ÌÌÓÓAs€in€òòDickóó,€we€do€not€view€the€trial€courtððs€comments€as€requiring€a€reversal€of€theÏconviction.€€The€remarks€were€not€an€ð ðundue€intrusion...into€this€exclusive€province€ofÍthe€jury....ðð€€òòKerseyóó,€525€S.W.2d€at€144;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Goadóó,€707€S.W.2d€846,€851Ï(Tenn.€1986);€òòBass€v.€Barksdaleóó,€671€S.W.2d€476€(Tenn.€App.€1984)(adopting€òòKerseyóóÏand€noting€that€ð ðnothing€should€be€done€or€said€to€a€juror€which€can€in€any€manner€beÏtaken€by€that€juror€to€indicate€that€he€or€she€should€abandon€an€honestly€heldÏconviction€in€order€to€reach€a€verdict....ðð).× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Therefore,€the€appellant€is€not€entitled€toÏrelief€on€this€ground.€€Ìà àà àÌà@ àò òVÌó óà àà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€toÏintroduce€the€medical€examinerððs€autopsy€report€on€direct€examination€without€alsoÏintroducing€the€toxicology€report.€€The€appellant€claims€that€he€was€prejudiced€in€thatÏthe€trial€courtððs€ruling€allowed€the€witness€to€ð ðdistanceðð€himself€from€the€laboratoryððsÏfindings€with€regard€to€the€levels€of€amphetamine€and€methamphetamine€in€theÏvictimððs€blood.€€The€appellant€concedes€that€the€toxicology€report€was€introducedÏduring€cross€examination€of€the€medical€examiner.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€decision€as€to€whether€to€admit€evidence€in€a€trial€is€left€to€theÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2d€161,€172€(Tenn.€1994),Íòòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€116€S.Ct.€137,€133€L.Ed.2d€84€(1995);€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€785€S.W.2d€132,Ï134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€The€appellant€theorized€that€the€high€level€ofÏmethamphetamine€in€the€victimððs€system€contributed€to€his€irrational€and€hostileÏbehavior€toward€the€appellant.€€He€concedes€that€he€introduced€the€toxicology€reportÏduring€cross€examination€of€the€medical€examiner€and€that€he€fully€questioned€theÏwitness€about€the€findings€therein.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€presented€his€own€expertÏwitness€who€fully€discussed€the€toxicology€report€as€well€as€the€potential€effects€of€theÏhigh€levels€of€methamphetamine.€€Thus,€the€appellant€simply€has€not€shown€that€heÏwas€harmed€by€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€or€the€manner€in€which€the€evidence€wasÏpresented.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).ÌÌà@ àò òVIó óÌà àà àFinally,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€imposed€an€excessiveÏsentence.€€When€a€defendant€challenges€the€length,€range€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence,€the€reviewing€court€must€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€on€the€record€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€were€correct.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€The€presumption€of€correctness€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ï169€(Tenn.€1991).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€sentence€to€be€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€presumptively€theÏminimum€within€the€applicable€range€unless€there€are€enhancement€factors€present.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€Procedurally,€the€trial€court€is€to€increase€theÏsentence€within€the€range€based€upon€the€existence€of€enhancement€factors€and€thenÏreduce€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€any€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(d)€&€(e).€€The€weight€to€be€afforded€each€factor€is€left€to€the€trial€courtððsÏdiscretion€so€long€as€it€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€sentencingÏact,€and€its€findings€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€(sentencing€commission€comments);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àà àThe€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€reviewed€the€evidence,€theÏpresentence€report,€and€the€principles€of€the€sentencing€act.€€The€courtððs€findings,Ïtherefore,€warrant€the€presumption€of€correctness.€€The€trial€court€enhanced€theÏsentence€based€on€the€appellantððs€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminalÏbehavior€and€the€appellantððs€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€&€(9).€€€The€appellant€does€not€contest€factor€„114(1),€which€was€predicated€onÏthe€appellantððs€prior€conviction€for€incest.€€Instead,€the€appellant€incorrectly€argues€thatÏfactor€„114(9),€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon,€was€an€element€in€the€crime€of€secondÏdegree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Rainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€376,€385€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994)(use€of€a€firearm€not€an€element€of€second€degree€murder);€òòState€v.€Jerry€Cookóó,ÏNo.€117€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Aug.€16,€1989)(use€of€knife€enhanced€sentenceÍfor€second€degree€murder).€€We€also€reject€the€appellantððs€assertion€that€the€deadlyÏweapon€enhancement€factor€is€unconstitutionally€vague.€€A€statute€is€unconstitutionallyÏvague€only€if€its€prohibitions€are€not€clearly€defined€and€are€susceptible€to€differentÏinterpretations€as€to€what€conduct€is€actually€proscribed.€€òòSeeóó€òòGrayned€v.€City€ofÏRockfordóó,€408€U.S.€104,€108€(1972).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€consider€certainÏmitigating€factors:€that€he€acted€under€strong€provocation;€that€substantial€groundsÏexisted€tending€to€excuse€or€justify€his€conduct;€that€he€assisted€authorities€in€locatingÏor€recovering€any€property€or€person€involved€in€the€crime;€and€that€he€committed€theÏoffense€under€such€unusual€circumstances€that€it€was€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intentÏto€violate€the€law€motivated€his€conduct.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(2),€(3),Ï(10),€&€(11).€€The€appellantððs€arguments€in€support€of€factors€(2),€(3),€and€(11)€areÏsimilar:€that€the€altercation€was€initiated€and€provoked€by€the€victim.€€The€trial€courtÏrejected€these€factors,€however,€after€considering€that€it€was€the€appellant€whoÏescalated€the€conflict€by€producing€a€knife.€Moreover,€the€victim€fled€after€the€initialÏaltercation€but€was€caught€from€behind€and€stabbed€in€the€chest€by€the€appellant.€€TheÏappellantððs€argument€in€support€of€factor€(10)€is€that€he€remained€at€the€scene€until€theÏauthorities€arrived.€€The€trial€court,€however,€weighed€this€evidence€against€the€factÏthat€the€appellant€washed€the€blood€off€the€knife€and€discarded€the€weapon.€€In€sum,Ïthe€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€appellantððs€arguments€and€theÍevidence.€€The€appellant€has€not€overcome€the€presumption€of€correctness€attendantÏto€the€courtððs€findings,€and€he€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€ground.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€Judge