ÿWPC¹h …U:V % 0Ü–4r † 0J• 0Tß 0^3 0 ‘ 0D± 0hõ R] 0r¯ 0|! 0† 0# 1u³U,( 0dT#†¸U,>U*jB)”DC½ AM D3Må€!eí†és B\¹y®2 0@à!H "Ôh$ <&¼H(†/U&Š1f°1à 2mö=tcB€×F¼WIÎKnáLçOO6R’MT{ßUšZX×ôZv~Ë]vÓI_ AOeÆke 0ø1f 0D)h D/mh Bœh, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑU_A 'ÿ Lega3|x2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(Ð(39™$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€,ÂXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔH ularÔ¬ŒÔôP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX 2@ 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˜HP LaserJet 4 Plus/4M PlusHPPCL5EÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0”Èo/?ZW9ÔÈŒ ï0ʇ<< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ****'ÿÿdxd ÛÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òFeb…ruaryÏ12,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€appellant€raises€nineteen€issues€in€his€brief€of€302€pages.€€We€noteÏthat€the€transcript€of€the€proceedings€contains€in€excess€of€4,175€pages,€notÏincluding€a€technical€record€of€989€pages.Ì ãÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Although€the€crime€occurred€in€Putnam€County,€the€appellant's€trial€wasÏheld€in€Cumberland€County€pursuant€to€his€motion€for€change€of€venue.Ì ßÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€appellant€knew€Ms.€Lefever€and€was€familiar€with€her€home,Ïbecause€Ms.€Lefever€was€a€good€friend€of€his€grandmother,€Rose€Mae€Bush.€€Ì d ¯Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€At€the€time€of€the€murder,€the€appellant€was€18€years€old,€6€feet€tall,€andÏ230€pounds.€€Ì ¤Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€During€the€guilt€phase,€Sheila€Bush€Hammock€asserted,€"MichaelÏwasn't€going€to€take€his€life.€€Michael€is€too€smart€...€He€just€wanted€attention."€ÏHospital€records€indicate€that€on€May€30,€1988,€the€appellant€ingestedÏapproximately€20€or€30€Tylenol€tablets,€in€conjunction€with€alcohol.€€At€the€timeÏof€his€suicide€attempt,€he€was€with€friends.€€Approximately€5€days€later,€on€JuneÏ3,€1988,€the€appellant€ingested€a€bottle€of€midol€and€a€bottle€of€Advil,€again€inÏconjunction€with€alcohol.€€He€was€with€a€friend,€and€asked€this€friend€to€take€himÏto€the€hospital.€€Dr.€James€Gillespie,€Jr.,€the€admitting€psychiatrist,€observed,Ï"[The€appellant]€is€somewhat€vague€about€his€reasons€for€taking€the€overdose,Ïbut€says€in€his€defense€that€he€had€no€intentions€of€dying€and€could€have€hadÏaccess€to€a€gun€or€sleeping€pills€if€he€were€serious€about€suicide.€...€He€impliesÏthat€he€may€have€taken€the€overdoses€to€upset€his€girlfriend€...€."€€Another€doctorÏnoted€that€the€appellant€"claimed€that€everything€was€all€a€joke.€€The€patientÏwas€considered€manipulative€and€quite€babyish€with€the€nursing€staff."Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò >Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€admission€records€from€the€Plateau€Mental€Health€Center€indicateÏthat€the€appellant€blamed€his€voluntary€departure€from€high€school€onÏdifficulties€with€his€teachers.€€However,€his€grades€had€been€satisfactory€untilÏthat€point.€Ì ÊÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€With€respect€to€this€other€murder,€the€appellant€was€eventually€chargedÏwith€the€first€degree€murder€of€Richard€Dow.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThese€warnings€include€the€witness'€right€to€remain€silent€and€his€rightÏto€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€€384€U.S.€436,€444,€86€S.Ct.€1602,€1637„38€(1966).Ì ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that,€in€òòBeckwith€v.€United€Statesóó,€425€U.S.€341,€346,€96€S.Ct.Ï1612,€1616€(1976),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€expressly€rejected€theÏcontention€that€the€"in€custody"€requirement€which€triggers€òòMirandaóó€warningsÏwas€satisfied€merely€because€the€police€interviewed€a€suspect€who€was€theÏ"focus"€of€a€criminal€investigation.€€The€Court€held:€€"It€was€the€compulsiveÏaspect€of€custodial€interrogation€and€not€the€strength€or€content€of€theÏgovernment's€suspicions€at€the€time€the€questioning€was€conducted,€which€ledÏthe€court€to€impose€òòMirandaóó€requirements€with€regard€to€custodial€questioning."€ÏòòIdóó.€€Nor€are€warnings€required€simply€because€the€questioning€takes€place€atÏthe€station€house.€€òòOregon€v.€Mathiasonóó,€429€U.S.€492,€495€(1977).€€Finally,€anÏofficer's€views€concerning€the€nature€of€an€interrogation€or€beliefs€concerningÏthe€potential€culpability€of€the€individual€being€questioned€may€bear€uponÏwhether€or€not€that€person€was€in€custody,€but€only€if€the€officer's€views€orÏbeliefs€were€somehow€manifested€to€the€individual€under€interrogation€andÏwould€have€affected€how€a€reasonable€person€in€that€position€would€haveÏunderstood€his€ability€to€leave.€€òòStansbury€v.€Californiaóó,€511€U.S.€at€„„„,€114ÏS.Ct.€at€1529„30;€€òòState€v.€Godfreyóó,€No.€03C01„9402„CR„00076€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€at€Knoxville,€March€20,€1995).Ì |Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€In€other€words,€the€"cat€out€of€the€bag€theory"€provides€that€"an€illegallyÏobtained€initial€confession€is€presumed,€subject€to€rebuttal,€to€taint€a€laterÏconfession."€€òòSmithóó,€834€S.W.2d€at€921.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Bayeróó,€331€ÏU.S.€532,€540,€67€S.Ct.€1394,€1398€(1947).Ì< Œ 9p`(??? \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ Ö Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€appellant€in€his€brief€suggests€that€the€trial€court's€decision€to€denyÏthe€appellant€the€marital€privilege€implicates€the€òòex€post€factoóó€provisions€of€theÏUnited€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€We€disagree.€€Between€the€time€ofÏthe€offense€and€the€time€of€trial,€there€were€no€significant€changes€in€the€law€ofÏmarital€privilege€in€criminal€cases.€€Although€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€EvidenceÏwere€adopted€in€1990,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€501€simply€states,€ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒExcept€as€otherwise€provided€by€constitution,€statute,Ïcommon€law,€or€by€these€or€other€rules€promulgated€by€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court,€no€person€has€a€privilege€to:Ì(1)€€Refuse€to€be€a€witness;Ì(2)€€Refuse€to€disclose€any€matter;Ì(3)€€Refuse€to€produce€any€object€or€writing;€orÌ(4)€€Prevent€another€from€being€a€witness€or€disclosing€any€€€Ì€€€€€€matter€or€producing€any€object€or€writing.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒThe€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€Rule€501€refer€one€to€òòMcCormickóó€forÏthe€rule€governing€spousal€communications€in€criminal€cases.€€Clearly,€RuleÏ501€also€encompasses€the€exceptions€to€the€marital€privilege€implicit€in€thisÏcourt's€opinion€in€òòAdams€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€804€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€Hurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€57,€64€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€Ïóó,€115€S.Ct.€328€(1994),€our€supreme€court€modified€the€marital€privilege€inÏcriminal€cases€so€that€the€testifying€spouse€alone€had€the€right€to€invoke€theÏprivilege.€€However,€the€opinion€was€filed€on€April€5,€1993,€approximately€twoÏmonths€after€the€appellant's€trial.€€Thus,€obviously,€the€trial€court€did€not€applyÏthe€òòHurleyóó€rule€in€this€case.€€In€any€event,€even€had€the€trial€court€applied€theÏnew€rule,€we€have€held€that€the€òòHurleyóó€rule€is€a€procedural€rule€that€does€notÏaffect€any€substantial€rights€of€a€defendant€in€a€criminal€case€and,€therefore,Ïdoes€not€implicate€òòex€post€factoóó€constitutional€provisions.€€òòState€v.€Braganóó,€No.Ï03C01„9403„CR„00121€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€July€5,€1995).€€Ìà àFinally,€we€note€that€the€òòHurleyóó€modification€of€the€common€law€rule€wasÏsuperseded€by€statute€when€the€legislature,€in€1995,€amended€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€24„1„201,€which€had€previously€only€applied€in€civil€cases.€€Section€24„1„201€now€provides,ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` Ò(a)€€In€either€a€civil€or€criminal€proceeding,€no€marriedÏperson€has€privilege€to€refuse€to€take€the€witness€standÏsolely€because€that€person's€spouse€is€a€party€to€theÏproceeding.Ì(b)€€In€either€a€civil€or€criminal€proceeding,€confidentialÏcommunications€between€married€persons€are€privileged€Ïand€inadmissible€if€either€spouse€objects.Ì cÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€is€applicableÏto€the€states€through€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.€€òòPointer€v.€Texasóó,€380€U.S.Ï400,€403,€85€S.Ct.€1065,€1068€(1965).€€Moreover,€our€supreme€court€has€largelyÏadopted€the€standards€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€under€the€SixthÏAmendment€in€determining€whether€there€has€been€a€violation€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€332€(Tenn.Ï1992)(however,€with€respect€to€the€right€to€òòphysicallyóó€confront€one's€accusers,Ïour€supreme€court€has€observed€that€"[t]he€'face„to„face'€language€found€in€theÏTennessee€Constitution€has€been€held€to€impose€a€higher€right€than€that€foundÏin€the€federal€constitution,"€òòState€v.€Deuteróó,€839€S.W.2d€391,€395€(Tenn.€1992)).Ì jÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€In€òòKentucky€v.€Stinceróó,€482€U.S.€730,€738,€107€S.Ct.€2658,€2663€n.9Ï(1987),€Justice€Blackmun€stated€that,€in€òòhisóó€opinion,€denying€a€defendantÏaccess€to€information€before€trial€òòmayóó€hinder€that€defendant's€opportunity€forÏeffective€cross„examination,€thereby€implicating€the€Confrontation€Clause.€ÏHowever,€our€supreme€court€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€832,€noted€thatÏ"[t]he€right€to€cross„examine€witnesses€...€does€not€include€the€power€to€requireÏthe€pretrial€disclosure€of€any€and€all€information€that€might€be€useful€inÏcontradicting€unfavorable€testimony."€€In€any€event,€the€State€in€this€caseÏfollowed€a€policy€of€open€file€discovery€and,€prior€to€trial,€informed€theÏappellant's€counsel€of€the€statements€made€by€the€appellant€to€Sheila€BushÏHammock.€€Ì vÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€appellant€was€arrested€on€September€25,€1988,€and€indicted€theÏnext€day.€€The€record€does€not€reflect€precisely€when€the€appellant€made€theÏincriminating€statements.€€However,€the€statements€were€made€after€theÏappellant's€arrest€and€consequent€incarceration€in€the€Putnam€County€Jail.Ì ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€In€any€event,€no€tapes€were€ever€introduced€either€at€the€suppressionÏhearing€or€at€trial.€€Ì ÄÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Deputy€Lane€testified€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€the€resultantÏtapes€contained€no€incriminating€evidence.Ì dÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€òòSee€supraóó€Section€III,€Issue€#6€"Whether€the€Appellant€is€Entitled€toÏRelief€Based€on€Allegations€of€Prosecutorial€Misconduct,"€(C)(1)€ClosingÏArgument,€Massive€Investigation,€for€a€general€discussion€of€the€standard€to€beÏapplied€in€reviewing€counsel's€argument.€Ì ÝÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝEffective€July€1,€1993,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202€(b)€(1994€Supp.)Ïset€forth€the€punishment€for€first€degree€murder.€€The€available€punishments€areÏ(1)€death;€(2)€imprisonment€for€life€without€possibility€of€parole;€or€(3)Ïimprisonment€for€life.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202€(b).€€Prior€to€this€enactment,Ïthe€only€available€punishments€were€death€and€life€with€possibility€of€parole.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€burglary€count€of€the€indictment€charged€the€appellant€withÏbreaking€and€entering€the€victim's€home€with€the€intent€to€commit€"[l]arceny€ofÏthe€goods€and€property€located€therein."Ì ˆÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€appellant's€trial€was€set€for€February€of€1993.Ì qÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€also€note€that,€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial,€the€jury€wasÏlikewise€instructed€as€to€"a€moral€certainty"€regarding€the€finding€of€aggravatingÏcircumstances€"beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€(charge€of€the€court,€transcript€ofÏthe€evidence,€vol.€eight,€ðð€III,€pp.€1153„1154).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€United€States€Supreme€Court,€in€òòCage€v.€Louisianaóó,€298€U.S.€39,Ï41,€111€S.Ct.€328,€329€(1990),€held€that€"moral€certainty"€modified€by€theÏphrases€"grave€uncertainty"€and€"actual€substantial€doubt"€did€not€meaningfullyÏconvey€the€definition€of€reasonable€doubt,€and,€thus,€violated€the€due€processÏclause.Ì ÍÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note,€however,€that€a€federal€district€court€has€recently€held€that€theÏphrase€"let€the€mind€rest€easily,"€when€used€to€qualify€"moral€certainty,"€does€notÏsufficiently€convey€to€the€jury€the€requisite€burden€of€proof€required€by€theÏConstitution.€€òòSeeóó€€òòRickman€v.€Duttonóó,€864€F.Supp.€686€(M.D.€Tenn.€1994).€€WeÏare€not,€however,€bound€by€that€court's€decision.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(Ð3[0$¢¢Ý ƒ`!ÝÑÑÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ7€,ÂXXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÙ€€Ùò òßL€#&";+'h|` e `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌà@ àFEBRUARYÏSESSION,€1995Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9403„CR„00094Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àCUMBERLAND€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€ò òLEONÏBURNS,€JRó ó.,€JudgeÌò òMICHAEL€DEAN€BUSHó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(FirstÏDegree€Murder€andÌà àAppellantà àà àà à)à àFirst€DegreeÏBurglary)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òMartelia€T.€Crawfordà àà àà àCharles€W.€Bursonó óÌBPR€#10760à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ310„A€East€Broad€St.,€Suite€1à àÌCookeville,€TN€€38501à àà àà àò òAmy€L.€Tarkingtonó óÌ(ON€APPEAL€andà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌAT€TRIAL)à àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌò òRichard€McGeeó óà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌBPR€#06181Ì222€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌNashville,€TN€€37201à àà àà àà àà àÌ(ON€APPEAL)à àà àà àà àò òWilliam€Edward€Gibsonó óà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òJ.€H.€Reneau€IIIà àà àà àà àOwen€G.€Burnettó óÌRt€3,€Box€165à àà àà àà àò òJohn€A.€Mooreó óÌCelina,€TN€€38551à àà àà àà àò òLillie€Ann€Sellsó óÌ(AT€TRIAL)à àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à145€South€Jefferson€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCookeville,€TN€€38501ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà àDavid€A.€Pattersonó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à206€East€2nd€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCrossville,€TN€€38555ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇò òòòà@ àOPINIONóóó óÌÓÓÌà àThe€appellant,€Michael€Bush,€appeals€as€of€right€from€a€judgment€ofÏconviction€and€sentence€of€death€for€first€degree€murder€and€a€judgment€ofÏconviction€for€first€degree€burglary.€€The€appellant€raises€the€following€issues€forÏour€review:× ƒ' ××  ×ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€the€appellant'sÏmotion€to€suppress€his€pre„trial€statements;ÌÌà8 à(2)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€the€appellant's€Ïmotion€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal€as€to€the€charge€of€first€degreeÏmurder;ÌÌà8 à(3)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€the€appellant'sÏmotion€to€suppress€his€wife's€testimony;ÌÌà8 à(4)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€the€appellant'sÏmotion€to€suppress€the€testimony€of€jailhouse€informants;ÌÌà8 à(5)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting,€over€the€appellant'sÏobjection,€photographs€of€the€victim€at€the€murder€scene;ÌÌà8 à(6)€€whether€prosecutorial€misconduct€deprived€the€appellant€of€aÏfair€trial;ÌÌà8 à(7)€€whether€the€prosecutor's€argument€during€the€sentencingÏphase€was€unconstitutional,€improper,€and€unethical;ÌÌà8 à(8)€€whether€the€trial€court€unconstitutionally€infringed€upon€theÏjury's€prerogative€to€assess€the€credibility€of€the€State's€witnesses;ÌÌà8 à(9)€€whether€the€appellant's€burglary€conviction€violated€the€stateÍand€federal€constitutions;ÌÌà8 à(10)€whether€the€Tennessee€death€penalty€statute€isÏunconstitutional€in€that€it€allows€for€unfair€implementation€of€theÏdeath€penalty;ÌÌà8 à(11)€€whether€the€appellant€was€unconstitutionally€deprived€noticeÏof€the€factual€basis€for€the€application€of€the€"witness€murder"Ïaggravating€circumstance€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(6);ÌÌà8 à(12)€€whether€the€trial€court€improperly€instructed€the€jury€as€to€theÏ"heinous,€atrocious€and€cruel"€aggravating€circumstance€set€forthÏin€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(1)(4);ÌÌà8 à(13)€€whether,€during€the€sentencing€phase,€the€trial€court€admittedÏevidence€that€violated€the€appellant's€rights€to€counsel€and€toÏremain€silent;ÌÌà8 à(14)€whether€the€trial€court,€at€both€phases€of€the€trial,€€improperlyÏinstructed€the€jury€as€to€the€meaning€of€"reasonable€doubt;"€ÌÌà8 à(15)€€whether€the€trial€court's€instructions€at€the€sentencing€phaseÏunconstitutionally€prohibited€the€jury€from€considering€and€givingÏfull€effect€to€the€appellant's€mitigating€evidence;ÌÌà8 à(16)€€whether€the€trial€court€failed€to€provide€to€the€jury€theÏproposed€instructions€necessary€for€the€proper€determination€ofÏthe€sentence;ÌÌà8 à(17)€€whether€the€death€sentence€unconstitutionally€infringes€uponÏthe€appellant's€fundamental€right€to€life;ÌÌà8 à(18)€€whether€the€Tennessee€death€penalty€statute€isÏunconstitutional€in€that€it€allows€cruel€and€unusual€punishmentÏand€denies€defendants€their€due€process€rights;€andÌÌà8 à(19)€€whether€the€cumulative€effect€of€all€errors€violates€theÏappellant's€constitutional€rights.ÌÌÌÓÓà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€both€convictions€and€the€sentenceÏof€death.Ìò òÌÌà@ àI.€€òòFACTS€„€GUILT/€INNOCENCE€STAGEóó:ó óÌÌà àOn€August€19,€1988,€Bobby€Lane,€a€criminal€investigator€for€the€PutnamÏCounty€Sheriff's€Department,€was€dispatched€to€the€home€of€Jodie€Lefever€toÏinvestigate€her€apparent€homicide.€€Ms.€Lefever€was€a€seventy„nine„year„oldÏwidow€who€lived€in€the€Silver€Point€community€of€Putnam€County.× ƒ( ××  ×€€A€neighborÏhad€reported€seeing€Ms.€Lefever's€body€through€a€window€in€her€home€whenÏhe€had€checked€on€her€earlier€in€the€day.ÌÌà àWhen€Deputy€Lane€opened€the€side€door€of€Ms.€Lefever's€house,€heÏobserved€Ms.€Lefever's€body€lying€face€down€beside€the€door.€€Deputy€LaneÏfurther€observed€a€gashing€wound€to€the€left€side€of€the€center€of€Ms.€Lefever'sÏhead€that€extended€to€the€base€of€her€head.€€Numerous€wounds€were€on€herÏback.€€A€large€amount€of€blood€was€on€her€back,€around€her€head,€and€on€theÏfloor.€€When€he€looked€around€the€room,€Deputy€Lane€noticed€drops€of€blood€onÏa€chair€and€on€the€floor€leading€to€the€kitchen.€€A€large€amount€of€blood€wasÍsplattered€on€the€door€and€wall.€€He€also€noticed€a€piece€of€pressure„treatedÏwood€lying€on€the€floor€at€the€edge€of€the€sofa.€€Another€investigator€foundÏanother€piece€of€pressure„treated€wood€behind€the€television€set.€€ÌÌà àAt€trial,€Deputy€Lane€testified€that€the€front€door€and€windows€of€Ms.ÏLefever's€house€were€locked,€and€that€there€was€no€sign€of€forced€entry.€€TheÏhouse€was€not€in€disarray,€but€two€holes€were€found€in€the€wall€near€the€victim'sÏbody.€€Ms.€Lefever€was€still€wearing€pearl€earrings€and€a€wedding€ring.€€FiftyÏdollars€were€found€in€her€purse€in€the€bedroom.€€No€bloody€fingerprints€wereÏfound€anywhere,€but€one€drawer€in€the€victim's€bedroom€dresser€was€open.€ÏAccording€to€family€members,€the€only€item€missing€from€the€house€was€aÏbutcher€knife€that€the€victim€kept€in€a€drawer€near€the€kitchen€sink.€ÌÌà àDr.€Gretel€Harlan,€an€assistant€medical€examiner€with€the€State€MedicalÏExaminer's€office,€testified€at€trial€that€Ms.€Lefever€died€as€a€result€of€multipleÏstab€wounds.€€She€was€stabbed€forty„three€times.€€The€wounds€were€in€aÏpattern€of€distribution€from€the€left€side€of€the€face,€down€the€back€of€the€neckÏand€shoulders,€and€down€the€back.€€The€wounds€injured€the€left€eye€andÏmultiple€vital€organs€within€the€chest.€€Dr.€Harlan€testified€that€Ms.€Lefever'sÏheart€was€pumping€when€each€of€the€stab€wounds€was€inflicted,€and€that,€sinceÏno€damage€was€done€to€the€central€nervous€system,€Ms.€Lefever€possibly€feltÏeach€of€the€stab€wounds.€€Although€Dr.€Harlan€could€not€tell€the€jury€exactly€howÍlong€the€victim€was€conscious€after€she€was€first€stabbed,€the€examiner€statedÏthat€Ms.€Lefever€could€have€been€alive€for€as€long€as€twenty€to€thirty€minutes,€orÏfor€as€short€a€period€of€time€as€three€to€five€minutes.€€Blood€samples€were€drawnÏfrom€the€victim€and€sent€to€the€T.B.I.€lab€for€sampling.ÌÌà àOn€September€25,€1988,€Sheriff€Jerry€Abston€was€notified€by€his€officeÏthat€Larry€Bush,€the€father€of€the€appellant,€and€Michael€Bush,€the€appellant,Ïwere€at€the€Putnam€County€Sheriff's€Office,€and€that€the€appellant€hadÏinformation€regarding€the€Lefever€murder.€€Sheriff€Abston€proceeded€to€hisÏoffice€and€spoke€with€the€appellant,€who€indicated€that€he€had€been€presentÏwhen€the€victim€was€killed.€€At€this€point,€the€interview€was€moved€to€theÏCookeville€Police€Department.€€€While€at€the€Cookeville€Police€Station,€SheriffÏAbston€recorded€the€appellant's€statement.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€stated€that€he€had€received€a€telephone€call€atÏapproximately€3:00€p.m.€on€the€afternoon€of€August€16,€1988,€and€that€a€voiceÏhad€told€him€that,€if€he€ever€wanted€to€see€his€family€alive€again,€he€would€comeÏto€the€"Japanese€„€like€looking€house€in€Silver€Point"€after€dark.€€After€he€hungÏup,€the€appellant€called€his€house.€€When€nobody€answered,€he€concluded€thatÏsomething€was€wrong.ÌÌà àLater€in€the€evening,€according€to€the€appellant's€statement,€he€asked€hisÍwife€to€drive€him€to€the€house€in€Silver€Point.€€He€told€his€wife€that€he€neededÏsome€money,€and€that€he€was€going€to€rob€an€old€woman€who€lived€there.€ÏWhen€his€wife€dropped€him€off,€the€appellant€saw€four€men€wearing€black€skiÏmasks€getting€out€of€their€vehicles€nearby.€€€As€the€appellant€approached€theÏmen,€one€of€them€pulled€out€a€gun€and€told€the€appellant€that€they€neededÏsomeone€that€the€victim€trusted.× ƒ) ××  ×€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€told€Sheriff€Abston€that€Ms.€Lefever€was€on€the€phoneÏwhen€he€arrived€at€her€house.€€He€knocked€on€the€door€and€identified€himself.€ÏWhen€Ms.€Lefever€unlocked€the€door,€the€men€shoved€the€appellant€into€theÏhouse,€and€one€of€the€men€hit€the€victim.€€Another€man€pulled€out€a€stick€andÏbegan€hitting€her.€€The€stick€broke,€and,€for€a€few€minutes,€the€men€were€intentÏupon€finding€pieces€of€the€stick.€€They€handed€the€pieces€to€the€appellant€andÏtold€him€to€go€outside.€€In€about€three€or€four€minutes,€the€men€also€came€out.€ÏOne€of€them€gave€the€appellant€a€knife,€cutting€the€appellant's€hand€in€theÏprocess.€€The€men€told€the€appellant€to€"get€rid€of€the€stuff"€and€to€wash€himselfÏoff.€€They€then€told€him€that€"loose€lips€sink€ships."ÌÌà àThe€appellant€stated€that€his€wife€picked€him€up€shortly€thereafter,€andÏthat€he€was€crying,€and€that€he€was€covered€in€blood.€€His€wife€asked€him€whatÍwas€wrong,€and€he€told€her€that€he€had€killed€Jodie€Lefever.€€He€directed€her€toÏdrive€him€to€the€lake,€into€which€he€threw€the€pieces€of€stick€and€the€knife.€€HeÏthen€told€his€wife€that€he€wasn't€the€person€who€had€killed€Ms.€Lefever.ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€tape€was€played€for€the€jury.€€Sheriff€Abston€testified€that,Ïshortly€after€the€appellant€made€this€statement,€as€a€result€of€additionalÏinterviews€and€also€conversations€with€his€staff,€he€arrested€the€appellant€for€theÏmurder€of€Jodie€Lefever.€€The€appellant€was€advised€of€his€rights,€which€heÏwaived.€€Later€in€the€afternoon€of€the€same€day,€the€appellant€gave€anotherÏstatement,€which€was€also€recorded€and€played€for€the€jury€at€trial.€€The€secondÏstatement€was€essentially€the€same€as€the€first.ÌÌà àOn€the€day€of€the€appellant's€arrest,€Doug€Burgess,€an€investigator€for€theÏPutnam€County€Sheriff's€Office,€received€a€call€from€his€brother,€the€chief€ofÏpolice€in€Baxter,€Tennessee.€€His€brother€told€Deputy€Burgess€that€Sheila€Bush,Ïthe€appellant's€wife,€had€information€concerning€Jodie€Lefever's€murder.€ÏBurgess€drove€to€the€trailer,€where€Ms.€Bush€then€resided€with€her€mother,€andÏspoke€with€her.€€He€then€took€Ms.€Bush€to€the€Putnam€County€Sheriff's€office,Ïwhere€Ms.€Bush€made€several€statements.ÌÌà àMs.€Bush€told€the€officers€that€she€and€the€appellant€had€married€onÏAugust€13,€1988,€approximately€three€days€before€the€murder€of€Ms.€Lefever.€ÍFor€a€brief€period€following€their€marriage,€the€appellant€and€Ms.€Bush€residedÏwith€her€mother.€€On€the€evening€of€August€16,€1988,€the€appellant€€told€his€wifeÏthat€he€knew€a€woman€whom€he€could€knock€in€the€head€and€from€whom€heÏcould€steal€money.€€He€pried€a€stick€out€of€the€bedroom€door€of€the€trailer€andÏtold€his€wife€to€drive€him€to€Silver€Point.€€As€they€approached€the€victim'sÏneighborhood,€the€appellant€told€his€wife€to€stop€beside€a€mailbox.€€He€got€outÏof€the€vehicle€andÔ% € Ô€told€his€wife€to€come€back€and€pick€him€up€in€twenty€minutes.€€ÌÌà àWhen€she€returned,€the€appellant€was€standing€in€the€middle€of€the€road.€ÏHe€had€taken€his€shirt€off€and€was€covered€in€blood.€€As€he€got€into€the€car,€theÏappellant€told€his€wife€that€he€had€killed€Ms.€Lefever€by€stabbing€her€with€aÏknife.€€He€instructed€her€to€drive€to€the€dam€by€the€boat€ramp.€€He€threw€his€shirt,Ïthe€knife,€the€sticks,€and€a€pair€of€sunglasses€into€the€lake.€€He€then€washedÏhimself€off.ÌÌà àAccording€to€Ms.€Bush,€the€following€day€the€appellant€related€theÏincident€in€more€detail.€€The€appellant€told€his€wife€that€he€had€hit€the€victim€withÏa€stick.€€He€had€then€removed€his€shirt,€wrapped€the€shirt€around€his€hand,€andÏobtained€a€butcher€knife€from€a€kitchen€drawer.€€He€stabbed€Ms.€Lefever€thirty€orÏforty€times€and€practiced€karate€on€her.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€Having€recounted€these€details,€theÍappellant€made€his€wife€lie€on€the€floor,€where€he€demonstrated€how€he€hadÏstabbed€Ms.€Lefever€in€the€back€and€in€the€head.ÌÌà àWhen€asked€why€she€had€not€reported€this€information€earlier,€Ms.€BushÏstated€that€the€appellant€had€told€her€that€the€Mafia€was€watching€her€and€thatÏsomething€would€happen€to€her€if€she€mentioned€anything.€€However,€onÏSeptember€24,€1988,€the€day€before€Ms.€Bush€spoke€with€the€police€about€theÏLefever€murder,€she€and€the€appellant€were€involved€in€an€altercation€at€herÏmother's€home,€during€which€the€appellant€struck€his€wife€several€times.€€TheÏaltercation€arose€when€Ms.€Bush€refused€to€leave€her€mother's€home€with€theÏappellant.€€Ms.€Bush's€brother€intervened€and€threatened€the€appellant€with€aÏshotgun,€forcing€the€appellant€to€flee.€€Ms.€Bush€and€her€mother€proceeded€toÏthe€police€station€and€filed€criminal€charges€against€the€appellant.€€TheÏfollowing€day,€Ms.€Bush€told€her€family€that€the€appellant€had€murdered€JodieÏLefever.€€Ms.€Bush's€brother„in„law€contacted€the€police.ÌÌà àAt€trial,€Howard€Morris,€an€agent€with€the€T.B.I.€dive€team,€testified€that€heÏhad€recovered€a€knife€next€to€the€Center€Hill€Dam.€€Roger€Lefever,€the€grandsonÏof€the€victim,€identified€the€knife€as€one€that€his€grandmother€had€kept€in€aÏdrawer€next€to€the€kitchen€sink.ÌÌà àSandy€Evans,€a€forensic€scientist€in€the€micro„analysis€section€of€theÍTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€crime€lab,€testified€that€the€two€sticks€ofÏwood€found€at€the€home€of€the€victim€came€from€the€top€of€a€bedroom€door€inÏthe€trailer€belonging€to€Sheila€Bush's€mother.€€Constance€Howard,€anotherÏT.B.I.€forensic€expert€and€a€specialist€in€serology,€typed€the€blood€of€theÏappellant€and€the€victim.€€She€concluded,€and€testified€at€trial,€that€the€bloodÏtaken€from€the€rug€and€the€floor€of€Ms.€Lefever's€home€was€consistent€with€theÏblood€of€the€appellant€and€not€that€of€the€victim.€€She€further€testified€that€theÏblood€samples€could€only€have€come€from€two€percent€of€the€state's€population.ÌÌà àJames€Mullins,€a€friend€of€the€appellant,€testified€that,€the€day€after€Ms.ÏLefever's€body€was€found,€the€appellant€came€to€his€house€with€a€newspaperÏstory€about€the€murder.€€According€to€Mullins,€the€appellant€was€excited€andÏgrinning€as€he€told€him€that€the€victim€didn't€live€far€from€the€appellant's€house.ÌÌà àJimmy€Myers,€a€cell€mate€of€the€appellant€in€the€Putnam€County€jail,Ïtestified€that€the€appellant€spoke€to€him€about€the€murder.€€The€first€time€theÏappellant€talked€about€the€murder,€he€told€Myers€that€his€wife€had€taken€him€toÏthe€victim's€house€to€get€money.€€When€he€couldn't€find€any€money,€he€killedÏMs.€Lefever.€€Later,€the€appellant€told€Myers€that€his€attorneys€had€warned€himÏto€be€careful€about€what€he€said€in€jail,€because€somebody€might€be€trying€toÏobtain€information.€€The€appellant€then€told€Myers€several€different€accounts€ofÏthe€murder.€€The€appellant€also€told€Myers€that€he€was€going€to€"play€crazy."ÌÌà àWilliam€Roger€Moore,€another€fellow€inmate€of€the€appellant,€testified€thatÏthe€appellant€had€told€him€that€he€had€gone€to€get€some€money€from€the€victimÏand€that€they€had€gotten€into€an€argument.€€The€appellant€lost€his€temper€andÏstabbed€the€victim€repeatedly.€€The€appellant€also€told€Moore€that€his€onlyÏdefense€was€to€"make€the€ploy€of€craziness."ÌÌà àThe€State€rested€and€the€defense€moved€for€judgments€of€acquittal€as€toÏboth€charges.€€The€defense€relied€upon€the€evidence€already€presented€andÏoffered€no€further€proof.€€The€jury€was€instructed€and,€following€deliberation,Ïfound€the€appellant€guilty€of€both€first€degree€burglary€and€first€degree€murder.ÌÌò òà@ àII.€€òòFACTS€„€SENTENCING€PHASEóóó ó:ÌÌà àAt€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial,€the€State€relied€upon€the€evidenceÏpresented€during€the€guilt€phase€and€presented€no€further€proof.€€The€appellantÏfirst€introduced€a€video€deposition€of€Rose€Mae€Bush,€the€eighty„five„year„oldÏgrandmother€of€the€appellant.€€Ms.€Bush€briefly€described€the€family's€history.€ÏShe€stated€that€the€appellant€was€the€middle€child€of€three€children,€and€that€heÏhad€been€a€sweet€child.€€His€father,€however,€"was€rough€on€Michael"€andÏdisciplined€him€more€than€the€other€children.€€The€appellant's€mother€died€ofÏcancer€in€1989.ÌÌà àMs.€Bush€further€testified€that,€at€the€age€of€ten,€the€appellant€wasÏinvolved€in€a€serious€bicycle€accident,€which€resulted€in€a€skull€fracture.€€AfterÏthe€accident,€the€appellant€often€told€his€grandmother€that€he€wished€he€hadÏdied€in€the€accident€and€that€he€wanted€to€die.€€In€1988,€the€appellant€wasÏhospitalized€following€two€apparent€suicide€attempts.× ƒ, ××  ×€€Ms.€Bush€also€stated€thatÏthe€appellant€sniffed€gas.€€She€knew€that€he€sniffed€gas,€because€she€hadÏ"smelt€it€on€him."€€Nevertheless,€Ms.€Bush€maintained€that€the€appellant€wasÏintelligent€and€"just€[a]€typical€teenager."ÌÌà àFinally,€Ms.€Bush€testified€that€she€and€Ms.€Lefever€had€been€friendsÏsince€childhood,€and€that,€when€they€went€to€the€store,€the€appellant€wouldÏoften€carry€Ms.€Lefever's€groceries.€€She€testified€that€the€victim€had€loved€theÍappellant.€€She€also€stated€that€she€did€not€believe€that€the€appellant€hadÏcommitted€the€crime,€but€believed€that€he€had€been€framed.ÌÌà àClarence€Davenport,€formerly€the€pastor€of€Wolf€Creek€Baptist€Church,Ïwhere€the€Bush€family€attended€church,€also€testified€on€behalf€of€the€appellant.€ÏHe€stated€that€the€appellant€had€interacted€well€with€other€children€and€hadÏbehaved€during€church€services.€ÌÌà àLarry€Bush,€the€appellant's€father,€testified€that,€during€the€appellant'sÏchildhood,€there€was€much€discord€in€the€home.€€Mr.€Bush€admitted€that€he€hadÏassaulted€his€wife€on€several€occasions.€€He€also€recounted€numerousÏinstances€in€which€he€had€"whipped"€his€son.ÌÌÌà àMr.€Bush€also€testified€that,€when€the€appellant€was€eighteen€months€old,Ïhe€would€hold€his€breath€until€he€passed€out.€€Additionally,€the€appellantÏrequired€medication€for€hyperactivity.€€When€he€was€three€or€four€years€old,€theÏappellant€began€sniffing€gas.€€At€age€ten,€he€was€involved€in€a€bicycle€accidentÏand€incurred€a€severe€head€injury.€€He€was€hospitalized€for€a€week€in€intensiveÏcare.€€Following€the€accident,€the€appellant€became€more€nocturnal.€€AccordingÏto€Mr.€Bush,€the€appellant€also€became€more€distant€and€quick„tempered.€€HeÏwas€often€involved€in€fights€at€school€because€of€his€temper.€€Ultimately,€in€theÍfall€of€1987,€during€his€senior€year,€the€appellant€dropped€out€of€high€school.× ƒ. ××  ×ÌÌà àMr.€Bush€stated€that,€as€a€child,€the€appellant€was€fascinated€with€twinsÏand€death.€€He€wanted€to€attend€all€of€the€family€funerals,€and€he€would€oftenÏtouch€the€bodies€of€the€deceased.€€The€appellant€also€had€nightmares€and€drewÏpictures€of€monsters€and€demons.€€ÌÌà àSherry€Bush€Agee,€the€appellant's€sister,€testified€that€her€father€oftenÏbeat€the€appellant€when€he€was€younger.€€She€acknowledged€that€theÏappellant€began€sniffing€gas€at€an€early€age.€€Through€Ms.€Agee,€the€defenseÏalso€introduced€numerous€poems€written€by€the€appellant.€€She€testified€that€theÏappellant€had€received€awards€for€his€poetry.ÌÌà àDonald€Bush,€the€appellant's€uncle,€testified€that€the€appellant€hadÏworked€for€him€renovating€houses,€and€that€he€had€always€been€an€excellentÏworker.€€Mr.€Bush€also€described€two€incidents€in€which€he€witnessed€theÏappellant€being€beaten€by€his€father.€€ÌÌà àRebecca€Jane€Smith,€a€social€worker€employed€with€the€MiddleÍTennessee€Mental€Health€Institute€(M.T.M.€H.€I.),€Forensic€Services€Division,Ïtestified€that€she€was€on€the€appellant's€initial€evaluation€team.€€She€providedÏthe€court€with€a€copy€of€the€appellant's€mental€health€record€from€M.T.€M.€H.€I.ÌÌà àMs.€Smith€testified€that€the€appellant€was€admitted€to€M.T.M.H.I.€onÏJanuary€30,€1989,€for€evaluation€and€was€discharged€on€April€10,€1989.€€HeÏwas€admitted€a€second€time€for€treatment€on€May€1,€1991,€and€was€dischargedÏon€August€5,€1991.€€Ms.€Smith€testified€that,€during€his€first€visit,€the€appellantÏinitiated€several€altercations€with€other€patients.€€At€times,€the€appellant€requiredÏrestraints€and€was€placed€in€solitary€confinement.€€However,€during€his€secondÏhospitalization,€the€appellant€was€calmer€and€less€disruptive.€€Ms.€SmithÏconfirmed€that€the€appellant€was€diagnosed€as€paranoid€schizophrenic.ÌÌà àDr.€Gillian€Blair,€a€licensed€clinical€psychologist€at€M.T.M.H.I.,€ForensicÏServices€Division,€€was€also€a€part€of€the€appellant's€evaluation€team€in€1989.€ÏHer€function€was€to€conduct€clinical€interviews€with€the€appellant€and€administerÏpsychological€tests.ÌÌà àDr.€Blair€testified€that,€on€the€basis€of€the€information€gathered€andÏreviewed,€the€evaluation€team€diagnosed€the€appellant€as€suffering€fromÏschizophrenia€paranoid€subtype€sub€chronic,€an€adjustment€disorder,€andÏsubstance€abuse.€€She€defined€schizophrenia€paranoid€as€a€disorder€in€whichÍthe€patient€experiences€systematized€delusions€and€frequent€auditoryÏhallucinations.€€The€patient€often€exhibits€unfocused€anxiety€and€anger€andÏextreme€intensity€in€interpersonal€interaction.€€She€defined€an€adjustmentÏdisorder€as€a€response€to€situational€stresses.€€Finally,€she€stated€that€aÏsubstance€abuse€disorder€was€diagnosed€because€of€the€appellant's€history€ofÏinhalation€of€solvents.ÌÌà à€Dr.€Blair€reviewed€the€appellant's€history,€including€the€administration€ofÏRitalin€before€the€appellant€was€two€years€of€age,€his€exposure€to€extremeÏphysical€abuse,€his€substance€abuse€since€the€age€of€three€or€four,€his€headÏinjury€at€the€age€of€ten,€his€grossly€dysfunctional€family€situation,€and€theÏabsence€of€prior€criminal€behavior.€€On€cross„examination,€Dr.€Blair€stated€thatÏshe€believed€the€appellant's€schizophrenia€had€begun€prior€to€his€January,Ï1989,€admission€to€M.T.M.H.I.€€She€stated€that,€when€she€administered€theÏMinnesota€Multiphasic€Personality€Inventory€to€the€appellant,€the€results€wereÏeither€invalid€or€suggestive€of€gross€psychopathology.€€Because€of€theseÏresults,€Dr.€Blair€administered€the€"M"€test,€which€is€a€test€to€determineÏmalingering.€€The€results€indicated€that€the€appellant€was€schizophrenic€and€notÏmalingering.ÌÌà àDr.€Blair€also€administered€the€Wexler€Adult€Intelligence€Test.€€SheÏdetermined€from€the€test€results€that€the€appellant€has€a€full€scale€I.Q.€of€96.€ÍBlair€stated€that€any€score€between€85€and€115€is€within€the€average€range.€ÏBlair€further€observed,€"[Talking€to€the€appellant]€was€like€talking€to€a€very,€veryÏyoung€child€...€[A]t€times€he€would€sort€of€respond€almost€like€a€five€year€old,€butÏoverall€I€would€say€the€maturity€level€was€more€like€maybe€twelve."ÌÌà àDr.€John€Cain,€a€psychiatrist€employed€by€M.T.M.H.€I.,€Forensic€ServicesÏDivision,€was€yet€another€member€of€the€appellant's€evaluation€team.€€Dr.€CainÏtestified€that,€on€one€occasion,€in€an€attempt€to€determine€whether€the€appellantÏwas€malingering,€he€administered€sodium€amitol,€popularly€known€as€truthÏserum.€€Under€the€influence€of€the€drug,€the€appellant's€psychotic€symptomsÏbecame€even€more€pronounced.€€Therefore,€Dr.€Cain€determined€that€theÏappellant€was€not€malingering€and€was€truly€suffering€from€paranoidÏschizophrenia.€€Dr.€Cain€also€opined€that€the€appellant€began€to€developÏsymptoms€of€this€disorder€sometime€during€high€school.ÌÌÌà àThe€State€called€five€rebuttal€witnesses.€First,€Dr.€Zillur€Athar,€aÏpsychiatrist€formerly€with€M.T.M.H.I.,€Forensic€Services€Division,€testified€that,Ïduring€the€appellant's€first€hospitalization,€Athar€was€called€in€as€a€secondÏpsychiatrist€to€determine€whether€the€appellant€was€committable.€€Dr.€AtharÏdetermined€that€the€appellant€was€not€actively€psychotic€at€that€time.ÌÌà àDuring€the€appellant's€second€hospitalization,€from€May,€1991,€to€August,Ï1991,€Dr.€Athar€was€the€appellant's€treating€psychiatrist.€€Dr.€Athar€felt€that€theÏappellant€suffered€from€borderline€personality€disorder,€which€would€account€forÏhis€impulsiveness€and€lack€of€control€over€anger.€€He€also€felt€that€the€appellantÏwas€malingering€about€his€psychotic€symptoms,€and€that€he€was€inventingÏstories€of€hallucinations,€vampires,€and€communications€with€a€dead€twin.ÌÌà àEdean€Gerdes,€the€treatment€coordinator€for€the€treatment€ward€ofÏM.T.M.H.I.,€Forensic€Services€Division,€testified€that,€during€his€hospitalization€inÏ1991,€she€also€worked€with€the€appellant.€€She€opined€that,€when€the€appellantÏtalked€about€vampires,€he€seemed€to€have€an€underlying€motive.ÌÌà àNeil€Blythe,€a€deputy€with€the€Putnam€County€Sheriff's€Department,Ïtestified€that€he€transferred€the€appellant€to€different€mental€institutions€onÏseveral€occasions.€€On€one€occasion,€the€appellant€told€him€that€the€doctorsÏwere€easy€to€fool.€€Later,€the€appellant€told€him€that€there€were€many€foreignÏdoctors,€and€that€they€asked€silly€questions.ÌÌà àGeorgia€Cravens,€the€mother€of€the€appellant's€ex„wife,€testified€that,€afterÏher€daughter€married€the€appellant,€he€became€very€cruel€and€abusive.€€Ms.ÏCravens€stated€that€the€appellant€was€normal€but€quick„tempered.€€She€testifiedÏthat€he€had€never€mentioned€twins,€talked€to€outer€space,€or€exhibited€bizarre€orÍweird€behavior€while€in€her€presence.ÌÌÌà àThe€State's€final€rebuttal€witness€was€Richard€Henley,€a€high€schoolÏfriend€of€the€appellant.€€He€described€the€appellant€as€being€a€great€guy€andÏalways€happy.€€He€further€stated€that€the€appellant€had€never€mentionedÏvampires€or€twins.€€Moreover,€Henley€had€never€seen€the€appellant€engage€inÏany€bizarre€behavior.€€However,€on€cross„examination,€he€admitted€that€onÏMarch€16,€1989,€when€interviewed€by€the€assistant€district€attorney,€he€hadÏstated€that€in€1988€the€appellant€began€to€act€strange€and€talked€about€dreamsÏof€killing.ÌÌà àClosing€arguments€were€heard.€€The€jury€was€instructed€on€the€followingÏtwo€statutory€aggravating€circumstances:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€€The€murder€was€extremely€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€itÏinvolved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessaryÏto€produce€death;€andÌÌà8 à(2)€€The€murder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,Ïinterfering€with€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€theÏdefendant€or€another.ÌÌÌÓÓThe€jury€was€also€instructed€that€it€should€consider€the€following€mitigatingÏcircumstances:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€€The€defendant€has€no€significant€history€or€prior€criminalÍactivity;ÌÌà8 à(2)€€The€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€under€theÏinfluence€of€extreme€mental€or€emotional€disturbance.€€ExtremeÏmental€or€emotional€disturbance€is€a€temporary€state€of€mind€soÏenraged,€inflamed€or€disturbed€as€to€overcome€one's€judgmentÏand€to€cause€one€to€act€from€the€compelling€force€of€theÏdisturbance€rather€than€for€evil€or€malicious€purposes.€€It€is€not€aÏmental€disturbance€in€itself€and€an€enraged,€inflamed€or€disturbedÏemotional€state€does€not€constitute€an€extreme€emotionalÏdisturbance€unless€there€is€a€reasonable€explanation€or€excuseÏfor€it;ÌÌà8 à(3)€€The€youth€of€the€defendant€at€the€time€of€the€crime;ÌÌà8 à(4)€€The€capacity€of€the€defendant€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulnessÏof€his€conduct€or€to€conform€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€theÏlaw€was€substantially€impaired€as€a€result€of€mental€illness€orÏdefect€or€intoxication€which€was€insufficient€to€establish€a€defenseÏto€the€crime€but€which€substantially€affected€his€judgment;ÌÌà8 à(5)€€The€defendant€was€subjected€to€physical€and/or€psychologicalÏabuse€or€cruelty€during€his€formative€years;ÌÌà8 à(6)€€That€the€defendant€has€considerable€poetic€abilities;ÌÌà8 à(7)€€That€the€defendant€can€be€treated€in€a€prison€setting;ÌÌà8 à(8)€€That€at€a€very€early€age€the€defendant€exhibited€signs€ofÏmental€or€emotional€disturbance€that€went€untreated;ÌÌà8 à(9)€€That€the€defendant€was€immature€for€his€age€and€lacked€theÏnormal€emotional€development€at€the€time€of€the€commission€ofÏthe€offense;€andÌÌà8 à(10)€€Any€other€mitigating€factor€which€is€raised€by€the€evidenceÏproduced€by€either€the€prosecution€or€defense€at€either€the€guilt€orÏsentencing€hearing.€€That€is,€you€shall€consider€any€aspect€of€theÏdefendant's€character€or€record€or€any€aspect€of€the€circumstancesÏof€€the€offense€favorable€to€the€defendant€which€is€supported€byÏthe€evidence.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€jury€deliberated€and€returned€a€verdict,€finding€that€the€State€hadÏproven€the€two€aggravating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and€thatÏthe€aggravating€circumstances€outweighed€the€mitigating€circumstancesÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€jury€sentenced€the€appellant€to€death.ÌÌÌò òà@ àIII.€òòANALYSISóó:ÌÓÓÌ1.à8 àWHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT€ERRED€IN€OVERRULINGÏTHEó ó€ò òAPPELLANT'S€MOTION€TO€SUPPRESS€HISÏSTATEMENTS€OF€SEPTEMBER€25,€1988.ó óÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€his€motionÏto€suppress€his€September€25,€1988€statements,€because€such€statementsÏwere€obtained€in€violation€of€his€òòòòMirandaóóóó€rights.ÌÌà àA€suppression€hearing€was€held€on€December€10,€1992.€€At€the€hearing,ÏSheriff€Jerry€Abston€testified€that€on€Sunday,€September€25,€1988,€he€wasÏcontacted€by€his€office€and€informed€that€Larry€Bush€wanted€to€bring€his€son,€theÏappellant,€to€the€jail€in€order€to€discuss€the€Jodie€Lefever€homicide.€€TheÏappellant€and€his€father€met€Sheriff€Abston€at€the€Putnam€County€Jail€betweenÏ1:00€and€1:30€p.m.€€Larry€Bush€informed€the€Sheriff€that€the€appellant€wanted€toÍmake€a€statement€that,€at€the€time€of€the€murder,€€he€was€with€the€people€whoÏmurdered€Jodie€Lefever.€€ÌÌà àAt€this€point,€Sheriff€Abston€transported€the€appellant€and€his€father€to€theÏCookeville€Police€Station.€€The€appellant's€father€rode€in€the€front€passengerÏseat€of€a€deputy€sheriff's€patrol€car,€and€the€appellant€rode,€unrestrained,€in€theÏback.€€The€Sheriff€moved€the€interview€to€the€Cookeville€Police€Department€forÏtwo€reasons.€€First,€it€was€visitor's€day€at€the€Putnam€County€Sheriff's€Office,€andÏthe€jail€was€crowded.€€Second,€the€appellant€indicated€that€he€also€hadÏinformation€about€an€unrelated€murder€that€had€occurred€in€the€city€ofÏCookeville.€€The€Cookeville€Police€Department€was€investigating€this€murder,Ïand€Sheriff€Abston€wanted€their€investigators€to€be€present€when€the€appellantÏmade€his€statement.× ƒ/ ××  ×€ÌÌà àAt€approximately€2:47€p.m.,€Officer€Bob€Terry,€Sheriff€Abston,€and€theÏappellant€entered€an€investigator's€room,€where€the€appellant€gave€a€tapedÏstatement€concerning€the€two€murders.€€Essentially,€the€appellant€stated€that€heÏreceived€a€phone€call,€in€which€the€caller€threatened€to€harm€his€family€if€he€didÏnot€follow€the€caller's€instructions.€€In€accordance€with€these€instructions,€theÏappellant€went€to€the€Lefever€residence,€€where€he€met€four€people€wearingÍhoods€over€their€heads.€€The€remainder€of€the€appellant's€statement€describedÏthe€beating€and,€ultimately,€the€killing€of€Jodie€Lefever€by€the€hooded€intruders.€ÏThe€appellant€was€not€given€òòMirandaóó€warnings€before€or€during€his€firstÏstatement,€because,€according€to€Sheriff€Abston,€the€appellant€was€neither€aÏsuspect€nor€in€custody€at€that€time.ÌÌà àWhen€the€interview€ended,€Sheriff€Abston€and€Officer€Terry€left€the€room.€ÏIn€the€hallway,€Deputy€Doug€Burgess€and€T.B.I.€agent€Larry€O'Rear€approachedÏthe€Sheriff€and€told€him€that€the€appellant's€wife€had€also€made€a€statement.€ÏShe€had€indicated€that€the€appellant€had€admitted€to€her€that€he€had€killed€Ms.ÏLefever.€€Sheriff€Abston€testified€that€only€when€he€became€aware€of€thisÏinformation€did€the€appellant€become€a€suspect.€€The€appellant€was€òòMirandizedóóÏat€approximately€4:17€p.m.€€At€that€time,€the€appellant€signed€a€waiver€of€hisÏrights.ÌÌà àA€second€interview€was€conducted,€during€which€the€appellantÏessentially€repeated€his€first€statement.€€He€also€described€the€manner€in€whichÏthe€victim€was€lying€as€he€left€her€residence,€and€he€directed€the€officers€toÏCenter€Hill€Lake€where€he€had€thrown€the€murder€weapon.€€The€appellant€andÏOfficer€Terry€engaged€in€a€heated€exchange€over€the€appellant's€involvement€inÏthe€murder,€and€the€interview€was€concluded.ÌÌà àA€third€interview€began€at€approximately€6:04€p.m.€€Bush€discussed€hisÏrole€in€the€homicide€of€Richard€Dow.€€During€this€session,€Bush€requested€anÏattorney,€and€all€questioning€ceased.ÌÌà àAt€no€time€prior€to€or€during€the€interviews€did€Larry€Bush€indicate€thatÏthere€was€anything€wrong€with€his€son's€mental€condition.€€Moreover,€there€wasÏnothing€in€the€appellant's€behavior€to€indicate€that€he€was€suffering€any€mentalÏproblems.€€The€appellant€was€nervous€and€became€excited€at€various€pointsÏduring€the€interviews,€but€his€behavior€was€otherwise€completely€normal.Ìà àÌà àDavid€Brady,€a€Cookeville€attorney,€testified€that€he€was€contacted€atÏapproximately€10:00€p.m.€by€Circuit€Court€Judge€Leon€Burns,€who€asked€him€toÏconsult€with€the€appellant.€€Brady€further€testified€that,€when€he€questioned€theÏappellant,€the€appellant€exhibited€no€emotion.€€Brady€concluded€that€theÏappellant€was€in€urgent€need€of€an€extensive€psychiatric€evaluation.ÌÌà àDr.€Gillian€Blair,€a€licensed€clinical€psychologist€at€M.T.M.H.I.,€ForensicÏServices€Division,€reviewed€the€tapes€of€the€appellant's€statements.€€SheÏtestified€that,€in€her€opinion,€the€appellant€was€not€competent€on€September€25,Ï1988,€to€waive€his€rights.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court,€in€its€findings,€concluded€that€the€appellant€voluntarilyÍwent€to€the€county€jail,€and€that€the€appellant€was€not€in€the€"custody"€of€theÏsheriff€at€the€time€of€the€initial€interview€at€the€police€department.€€The€courtÏfurther€found€that€the€sheriff€only€considered€the€appellant€to€be€a€suspect€afterÏhe€spoke€with€the€officers€who€had€interviewed€the€appellant's€wife.€€When€theÏappellant€became€a€suspect,€he€was€immediately€given€òòMirandaóó€warnings.€ÏFinally,€the€court€found€that,€on€September€25,€1988,€€the€appellant€wasÏcapable€of€understanding€his€rights€and€voluntarily€waived€his€rights.ÌÌà@ àò òA.€€Custodial€InterrogationÌà àó óThe€appellant€first€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€theÏstatement€made€during€the€first€interview€at€the€Cookeville€Police€Department.€ÏAccording€to€the€appellant,€the€trial€court€erroneously€found€that€he€was€òònotóó€inÏcustody€at€the€time€of€the€first€interview,€and€that,€therefore,€òòMirandaóó€warningsÏwere€not€required.ÌÌÌà àòòMirandaóó€warnings€are€a€set€of€procedural€safeguards,€designed€toÏprotect€the€constitutional€rights€of€persons€subjected€to€"custodial€interrogation."€ÏThe€safeguards€require€that€law€enforcement€officers€provide€certain€specificÍwarnings€òòbeforeóó€questioning€a€person€in€custody.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€If€these€warnings€are€notÏgiven,€statements€elicited€from€the€individual€may€not€be€admitted€for€certainÏpurposes€in€a€criminal€trial.€€òòStansbury€v.€Californiaóó,€511€U.S.€„„„,€114€S.Ct.Ï1526,€1528€(1994).€€However,€an€officer's€obligation€to€administer€òòMirandaóóÏwarnings€only€attaches€"where€there€has€been€such€a€restriction€on€a€person'sÏfreedom€as€to€render€him€'in€custody.'"€€òòIdóó.€(citing€òòOregon€v.€Mathiasonóó,€429€U.S.Ï492,€495,€97€S.Ct.€711,€714€(1970)€[citations€omitted]).ÌÌà àThus,€in€determining€whether€an€accused€should€have€been€advised€ofÏhis€òòMirandaóó€rights,€the€initial€inquiry€is€whether€the€suspect€was€"in€custody."€€AÏperson€is€said€to€be€"in€custody"€within€the€meaning€of€òòMirandaóó€if€there€hasÏbeen€a€"formal€arrest€or€restraint€on€freedom€of€movement€of€the€degreeÏassociated€with€a€formal€arrest."€€òòCalifornia€v.€Beheleróó,€463€U.S.€1121,€1125,Ï103€S.Ct.€3517,€3520€(1966);€€òòMathiasonóó,€429€U.S.€at€495,€97€S.Ct.€at€714.€€InÏorder€to€ascertain€whether€the€accused€was€in€custody€at€a€particular€time,€anÏobjective€standard€must€be€employed.€€òòMichigan€v.€Chesternutóó,€486€U.S.€567,Ï573,€108€S.Ct.€1975,€1979€(1988);€€òòUnited€States€v.€Mendenhallóó,€446€U.S.€544,Ï554,€100€S.Ct.€1870,€1877€(1980);€òòState€v.€Foldsóó,€No.€01C01„9308„CC„00278Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€March€3,€1995):€òòState€v.€Lovedayóó,€C.C.A.€No.Í100€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€July€5,€1990).€€Specifically,€the€inquiry€isÏ"how€a€reasonable€person€in€the€suspect's€position€would€have€understood€hisÏposition,"€i.e.,€would€he€have€felt€that€he€was€not€free€to€leave€and,€thus,€inÏcustody.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€òòBerkemer€v.€McCartyóó,€468€U.S.€420,€442€,€104€S.Ct.€3138,3151Ï(1984);€€òòsee€alsoóó€€€òòMichigan€v.€Chesternutóó,€€486€U.S.€at€573,€108€S.Ct.€at€1975;ÏòòState€v.€Furloughóó,€797€S.W.2d€631,€639€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990);€òòState€v.ÏMosieróó,€888€S.W.2d€781,€784€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòFoldsóó,€No.€01C01„9308„CC„00278;€€òòAndersonóó,€C.C.A.€#3;€òòLovedayóó,€C.C.A.€No.€100.€€€When€such€aÏquestion€is€presented€to€the€court€for€determination,€each€case€must€beÏcontrolled€by€its€own€facts,€and€all€of€the€circumstances€must€be€taken€intoÏconsideration€by€the€judge€making€his€decision.€€òòLovedayóó,€C.C.A.€No.€100Í(citing€òòState€v.€Nakdimenóó,€735€S.W.2d€799€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)).€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€concluded€that€the€appellant€was€not€in€custody€at€the€timeÏof€the€first€statement.€€This€court€will€not€set€aside€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏunless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€its€findings.€€òòState€v.ÏStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544€(Tenn.€1994).€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€record€reflects€that€the€appellant€was€not€in€custody€at€the€time€heÏmade€the€initial€statement€to€Sheriff€Abston,€and,€moreover,€that€all€of€theÏappellant's€statements€were€voluntary.€€€Voluntary€statements€to€police€officersÏare€not€barred€by€the€Fifth€Amendment.€€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€at€436,€86ÏS.Ct.€at€1602;€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòCalifornia€v.€Beheleróó,€463€U.S.€at€1121,€103€S.Ct.€atÏ3517;€€òòOregon€v.€Mathiasonóó,€429€U.S.€at€492,€97€S.Ct.€at€711;€òòBeckwith€v.ÏUnited€Statesóó,€425€U.S.€at€341,€96€S.Ct.€1612.€€"There€is€no€requirement€that€theÏpolice€stop€a€person€who€enters€a€police€station€and€states€that€he€wishes€toÏconfess€to€a€crime€.€.€.€or€[offers]€any€other€statement€he€desires€to€make€.€.€.€."€ÏòòMirandaóó,€384€U.S.€at€478,€86€S.Ct.€at€1630.€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€appellantÏwent€voluntarily€to€the€Sheriff's€Department,€and,€later,€€to€the€Cookeville€PoliceÏDepartment.€€Indeed,€the€appellant€volunteered€his€statement€on€a€Sunday,€andÏSheriff€Abston€had€to€be€called€at€home€to€meet€the€appellant€at€the€Sheriff'sÏDepartment.€€The€appellant€was€never€told€that€he€could€not€leave,€and€heÏnever€attempted€to€leave.€€Clearly,€the€statement€meets€the€requirements€ofÍvoluntariness€imposed€by€the€Due€Process€Clause.€€€€Accordingly,€the€trial€courtÏcorrectly€admitted€the€first€statement€of€the€appellant.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€argues€that€the€statements€made€by€the€appellantÏafter€he€was€given€òòMirandaóó€warnings€should€have€been€suppressed€under€theÏ"cat€out€of€the€bag€theory."€€This€theory€stands€for€the€proposition€that,€if€theÏpolice€obtain€a€statement€from€a€suspect€in€contravention€of€òòMirandaóó,€the€StateÏcannot€rely€upon€a€subsequent€waiver€of€rights€to€gain€admissibility€of€a€laterÏstatement€derived€from€the€earlier€statement.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€834€S.W.2dÏ915,€919€(Tenn.€1992).× ƒ2 ××  ×€€As€we€have€concluded€that€the€appellant's€firstÏstatement€was€not€in€contravention€of€òòMirandaóó,€this€argument€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌ€Ìà@ àò òB.€€Waiver€of€òòMirandaóó€WarningsÌà àó óThe€appellant€additionally€argues€that€his€waiver€was€not€valid,€and€that,Ïtherefore,€his€second€and€third€statements,€made€on€September€25,€1988,Ïshould€likewise€be€suppressed.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€contends€that€hisÏmental€illness€(schizophrenia),€combined€with€his€immaturity,€prevented€himÏfrom€appreciating€that€he€was€a€suspect€and€from€understanding€theÍimplications€of€waiving€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€Furthermore,€the€appellant€arguesÏthat€the€record€is€"devoid€of€evidence€that€Bush€'intelligently€andÏunderstandably'€waived€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€and,€therefore,€the€statements€BushÏmade€during€his€second€and€third€sessions€should€have€been€suppressed."€ÏThe€State€contends€that€the€appellant€was€able€to€comprehend€and€voluntarilyÏwaive€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€appellant€was€capable€ofÏunderstanding€the€òòMirandaóó€warnings,€and€that€he€voluntarily€waived€his€rights.€€ÌÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€suggests€that,€because€he€requested€counsel€duringÏhis€third€interview,€his€statements€during€this€interview€were€obtained€inÏviolation€of€his€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel.€€The€appellant's€contention€isÏmisplaced.€€A€defendant's€right€to€counsel€attaches€òòafteróó€formal€proceedingsÏhave€begun€by€way€of€formal€charge,€preliminary€hearing,€indictment,Ïinformation,€or€arraignment.€€òòBrewer€v.€Williamsóó,€430€U.S.€387,398,€97€S.Ct.Ï1232,€1239€(1977).€€Clearly,€no€formal€proceedings€had€begun€at€the€time€of€hisÏrequest.€€However,€we€recognize€the€"rigid€rule€that€an€accused's€request€for€anÏattorney€is€òòper€seóó€an€invocation€of€his€Fifth€Amendment"€right€to€counsel€asÏrequired€by€òòMirandaóó.€€òòSeeóó€€òòEdwards€v.€Arizonaóó,€451€U.S.€482,€485,€101€S.Ct.Ï1880,€1885€(1981).€€Thus,€when€the€accused€requests€counsel,€all€interrogationÏmust€cease.€€òòIdóó.€€The€record€before€us€reflects€that,€once€the€defendant€asked€toÏspeak€with€an€attorney,€questioning€did€in€fact€cease,€and€an€attorney€wasÍcalled.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€no€violation€of€the€appellant's€Fifth€AmendmentÏright€to€counsel€occurred.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€trial€court's€ruling€in€a€suppression€hearing€is€presumedÏcorrect€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€it.€€òòState€v.ÏStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€defendant€has€theÏburden€of€showing€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€a€finding€that€aÏconfession€was,€in€fact,€freely€and€voluntarily€given.€€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2dÏ600,€610€(1984);€€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòNakdimenóó,€735€S.W.2d€at€800.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€right€to€counsel€and€the€right€against€self„incrimination€areÏconstitutional€rights,€they€may€be€waived,€provided€the€waiver€is€madeÏ"voluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently."€€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2dÏ317,€326€(Tenn.€1992)€(citing€òòMirandaóó,€384€U.S.€at€444,€86€S.Ct.€at€1612).€€InÏdetermining€whether€the€statement€has€been€made€knowingly€and€voluntarily,Ïthe€court€must€look€to€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€€òòIdóó.€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€the€appellant€presented€expert€testimonyÏfrom€Dr.€Gillian€Blair.€€Dr.€Blair€testified€that€it€was€her€opinion€that,€based€uponÏher€diagnosis€that€the€appellant€was€a€paranoid€schizophrenic€on€SeptemberÏ25,€1988,€he€was€incompetent€to€waive€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€However,€the€StateÏpresented€lay€testimony€that€the€appellant€comprehended€and€voluntarilyÍwaived€these€rights.€€The€appellant€signed€a€written€waiver€of€his€constitutionalÏrights.€Sheriff€Abston€testified€that€the€appellant's€father€never€indicated€thatÏthere€was€anything€wrong€with€the€appellant's€mental€condition€at€the€time€heÏmade€the€statements.€€He€also€testified€that€the€appellant€never€indicated€thatÏhe€was€experiencing€any€difficulty€with€his€mental€processes,€and€that€theÏappellant€was€responsive€to€his€questions€and€gave€a€"good€rehearsed€typeÏstatement."€€Officer€Robert€Terry€testified€that,€during€the€interviews,€theÏappellant€was€coherent€and€responsive€to€the€officers'€questions,€and€that€heÏdid€not€seem€unduly€nervous€or€anxious.€€At€no€time€did€the€appellant€speak€ofÏdemons,€vampires,€or€any€other€delusions,€which€appear€to€be€the€basis€of€Dr.ÏBlair's€diagnosis€of€the€appellant.ÌÌà àEven€if,€as€Dr.€Blair€suggests€and€the€appellant€argues,€the€appellantÏcould€not€appreciate€the€effect€of€his€waiver€due€to€his€existing€mental€illness,Ïthat€alone€is€insufficient€to€invalidate€a€waiver.€€€In€òòState€v.€Greenóó,€613€S.W.2dÏ229,€233€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980),€this€court€held€that€the€general€rule€admittingÏa€confession€even€if€the€accused€was€under€the€influence€of€drugs€or€alcohol,Ïprovided€that€the€accused€was€capable€of€making€a€narrative€of€past€events€orÏof€stating€his€own€participation€in€a€crime,€is€equally€applicable€to€the€issue€ofÏinsanity.€€This€court€reasoned€that€if€the€mental€incapacity€did€not€render€theÏaccused€incompetent€as€a€witness,€then,€likewise,€his€confession€is€notÏincompetent.€€òòIdóó.€€(citing€23€C.J.S.,€Criminal€Law,€sec.€828).€€If€the€accused€hasÍsufficient€understanding€to€comprehend€the€obligation€of€an€oath€and€is€capableÏof€giving€a€correct€account€of€the€matters€of€which€he€has€knowledge,€he€isÏcompetent€to€be€a€witness.€€òòIdóó.€€Therefore,€if€the€accused€comprehends€that€heÏneed€not€talk,€that€he€could€have€a€lawyer,€and€that€the€statements€can€be€usedÏagainst€him,€and€if€his€confession€did€not€involve€official€coercion,€he€can€makeÏa€valid€waiver€of€his€rights.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€471„473Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€As€the€appellant€later€asked€to€speak€to€an€attorney,€it€isÏpresumed€that€the€appellant€did,€in€fact,€understand€his€constitutional€rights.€ÏFurthermore,€the€appellant's€second€statement€is€essentially€a€repetition€of€hisÏfirst€statement€and€was€not€a€"confession,"€but€rather€a€statement€expressing€theÏappellant's€knowledge€as€to€the€facts€of€a€crime.ÌÌÌà àAdditionally,€we€address€the€voluntariness€of€the€appellant's€statement.€€ÏIn€determining€the€voluntariness€of€a€confession,€the€sole€concern€of€the€FifthÏAmendment,€on€which€òòMirandaóó€was€based,€is€governmental€coercion.€ÏòòColorado€v.€Connellyóó,€479€U.S.€157,€170,€107€S.Ct.€515,€523€(1986)€(statementÏfound€to€be€voluntary€notwithstanding€the€longstanding€disorder€of€chronicÏparanoid€schizophrenia€suffered€by€the€accused).€€The€voluntariness€test€underÏthe€Tennessee€Constitution€is€more€protective€of€individual€rights€than€the€testÏunder€the€Fifth€Amendment.€€òòStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€544.€€Accordingly,€forÏTennessee€Constitutional€purposes,€a€waiver€is€valid€if€the€suspect€is€aware€ofÍthe€nature€of€the€right€being€abandoned€and€the€consequences€of€the€decisionÏto€abandon€the€right.€€òòIdóó.€at€547.€€Our€examination€of€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€this€interview€not€only€indicates€that€the€appellant'sÏrelinquishment€of€his€rights€was€not€the€product€of€intimidation,€coercion,€orÏdeception,€but€also€was€the€result€of€the€appellant's€free€and€deliberate€choice.€ÏAgain,€the€evidence€in€the€record€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€court'sÏfindings.€€Accordingly,€we€uphold€the€admission€of€all€of€the€appellant'sÏstatements.ÌÓÓÌÌò ò2.à8 àWHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT€ERRED€IN€OVERRULINGÏTHE€APPELLANT'S€MOTION€FOR€JUDGMENT€OFÏACQUITTAL€AS€TO€THE€CHARGE€OF€PREMEDITATEDÏMURDER.ó óÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€establish€theÏnecessary€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€as€required€underÏTennessee€law€to€obtain€a€conviction€of€first€degree€murder.€€The€appellantÏargues€that,€although€the€evidence€sufficiently€shows€that€the€appellant€used€aÏdeadly€weapon€without€adequate€provocation€so€as€to€constitute€a€willful,Ïmalicious€killing,€there€is€insufficient€evidence€to€show€that€he€had€formed€theÏintent€to€kill€with€cool€purpose,€free€from€the€passion€of€the€moment.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1991).€€ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ïwe€must€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution€inÏdetermining€whether€"any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443ÏU.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluateÏthe€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€viewÏof€the€proof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimateÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,Ï835€(Tenn.€1978).ÌÌà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€to€the€evidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€AÏguilty€verdict€rendered€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€theÏtestimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State,€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€theÏpresumption€of€innocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).òòÌÌà àóóAn€appellant€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€the€proof€has€the€burden€ofÏillustrating€to€this€court€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdictÏreturned€by€the€trier€of€fact€in€his€case.€€This€court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€ofÏguilt€for€lack€of€sufficient€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€andÏany€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€facts€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€ofÍlaw,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€appellant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).ÌÌÔ€3Ôà àAt€the€time€the€offense€was€committed,€premeditated€firstÏdegree€murder€required€proof€of€the€"willful,€malicious,Ïpremeditated€and€deliberate€killing€of€another."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„2„202€(replaced€by€ðð€39„12„202€(a)(1)€(1989)).€€The€termsÏ"premeditated"€and€"deliberate"€are€not€synonymous.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,Ñ€4ÑÇÑ  Ñ836€S.W.2d€530,€538€(Tenn.€1992).€€Premeditation€requires€aÏprevious€intent€to€kill.€€òòIdóó.€at€539.€Deliberation,€on€the€other€hand,Ïmay€be€defined€as€a€"cool€purpose...€formed€in€the€absence€ofÏpassion."€€òòIdóó.€(citations€omitted);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201(b)(1)€(1989).€€€Deliberation€also€requires€"some€period€ofÏreflection,€during€which€the€mind€is€free€from€the€influence€ofÏexcitement."€€òòIdóó.€(citations€and€internal€quotations€omitted);€òòseeÏalsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201(b)(2)€(1989).€ÌÌà àPremeditation€and€deliberation€are€questions€for€the€jury€andÏmay€be€inferred€from€the€manner€and€circumstances€of€the€killing.€ÏòòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóóÏòòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994).€€Both€elements€may€be€proved€byÏcircumstantial€evidence€alone.€€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€541.€€AlthoughÏthere€are€no€strict€standards€as€to€what€constitutes€proof€ofÏpremeditation€and€deliberation,€this€court€has€held€that€theÏfollowing€considerations€are€helpful€in€the€inquiry:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€facts€about€how€and€what€the€defendant€did€prior€toÏthe€actual€killing€which€show€he€was€engaged€in€activityÏdirected€toward€the€killing,€that€is,€òòplanning€activityóó;ÌÌà8 à(2)€facts€about€the€defendant's€prior€relationship€andÏconduct€with€the€victim€from€which€òòmotiveóó€may€beÏinferred;€andÌÌà8 à(3)€facts€about€the€òònature€of€the€killingóó€from€which€itÏmay€be€inferred€that€the€manner€of€killing€was€soÏparticular€and€exacting€that€the€defendant€must€haveÏintentionally€killed€according€to€a€preconceived€design.ÌÌÓÓòòGentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€at€4„5€(emphasis€in€original)(quoting€2€W.€LaFaveÏand€A.€Scott,€òòSubstantive€Criminal€Lawóó€ðð€7.7€(1986)).ÌÌÔ€ Ôà à€There€is€sufficient€evidence€concerning€planning€activity€and€the€natureÏof€the€killing€to€support€the€jury's€finding€of€both€premeditation€and€deliberation.€ÏThe€evidence€reveals€that€the€appellant€had€stated€his€intention€to€"knock€theÏvictim€in€the€head."€Furthermore,€the€board€which€the€appellant€took€to€theÏvictim's€home€was€clearly€capable€of€carrying€out€his€stated€intention.€€TheÏprocurement€of€a€weapon€has€long€been€held€to€establish€premeditation.€€òòSeeóóÏòòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€541.€€€Moreover,€the€fact€that€the€killing€was€particularlyÏcruel€serves€to€establish€premeditation.€€òòIdóó.€€It€is€apparent€from€the€evidenceÏbefore€us€that€the€appellant€intended€to€kill€the€victim.€€If€the€appellant's€purposeÏwas€only€to€disable€or€subdue€his€elderly€victim,€the€beating€with€the€boardÏwould€have€been€sufficient.€€However,€as€the€evidence€shows,€after€beating€theÏvictim€with€the€board,€the€appellant€obtained€a€second€weapon,€a€butcher€knife.ÍHe€then€proceeded€to€stab€the€victim€a€total€of€forty„three€times,€the€woundsÏextending€from€the€left€side€of€her€head€down€to€her€back,€thereby€ensuring€herÏdeath.€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€circumstances€of€the€killing€clearly€reflect€that€it€wasÏcommitted€with€deliberation.€€The€proof€at€trial€established€that€the€appellant€toldÏhis€wife€that€he€struck€the€victim€in€the€head€with€the€board.€€Once€she€wasÏdown,€he€took€his€shirt€off,€wrapped€it€around€his€hand,€opened€the€kitchenÏdrawer,€and€took€out€a€butcher€knife.€€It€can€be€inferred€that€the€appellantÏcovered€his€hands€in€order€not€to€leave€any€fingerprints€or€to€prevent€injury€toÏhis€own€hands.€€He€then€stabbed€the€victim€forty„three€times.€€Before€leaving€theÏscene,€the€appellant€took€the€time€to€collect€broken€pieces€of€the€board€used€toÏbeat€the€victim.€€The€appellant€then€fled€the€scene€and€told€his€wife€to€drive€to€aÏnearby€dam,€where€he€disposed€of€the€weapons€and€washed€himself.€€AlthoughÏthe€concealment€of€evidence€after€the€fact€is€not€probative€of€the€appellant'sÏstate€of€mind€before€the€shooting,€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€148€(Tenn.Ï1992),€the€fact€that€the€concealment€occurred€immediately€after€the€killingÏsupports€the€theory€that€the€appellant€committed€the€killing€"in€the€absence€ofÏpassion."€€òòIdóó.€€Moreover,€we€agree€with€the€finding€of€the€jury€that€the€appellant'sÏmotive€was€the€removal€of€the€victim€as€a€witness.€€These€facts€support€the€jury'sÏfinding€that€the€appellant€committed€the€murder€with€Ô€3Ôcool€purpose€formed€inÍthe€absence€of€passion.Ô€ ÔÌÌà àBased€upon€the€foregoing€facts,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€isÏsufficient€to€establish,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€that€the€killing€wasÏcommitted€with€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌò ò3.€THE€MARITAL€PRIVILEGEó óÌÓÓò òÌA.€€à0 àWHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT€ERRED€IN€OVERRULING€THEÏAPPELLANT'S€MOTION€TO€SUPPRESS€THE€TESTIMONY€OFÏSHEILA€BUSH€HAMMOCKó ó€ÌÓÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€marital€privilege€should€have€barred,€atÏtrial,€the€testimony€of€Sheila€Bush€Hammock€concerning€statements€made€byÏthe€appellant€to€Ms.€Hammock€during€their€marriage.€€Specifically,€the€appellantÏargues€that,€because€the€trial€court€restricted€examination€of€Ms.€Hammock€atÏthe€suppression€hearing€to€"the€circumstances€under€which€any€statementsÏwere€made€that€might€be€attributable€or€not€attributable€to€some€maritalÏprivilege,"€€the€court€was€unable€to€properly€determine€whether€the€appellantÏcould€invoke€the€privilege.€€In€other€words,€according€to€the€appellant,€testimonyÏconcerning€"the€details€and€contents€of€the€statements"€was€essential€to€theÏresolution€of€the€appellant's€motion.Ì€€Ìà àThe€suppression€hearing€was€held€on€June€9,€1992.€€At€the€hearing,€Ms.ÏHammock€testified€that€she€had€married€the€appellant€on€August€13,€1988,€threeÏdays€prior€to€the€murder€of€Jodie€Lefever.€€She€further€testified€that€she€and€theÏappellant€had€been€dating€"off€and€on€two€years"€before€their€marriage.€€BothÏbefore€and€after€their€marriage,€the€appellant€"threatened"€and€"beat"€Ms.ÏHammock.€€Ms.€Hammock€also€stated,€"He€would€always€call€me€names€andÏmake€fun€of€me.€€I€couldn't€say€anything€right."€€Moreover,€following€theirÏmarriage,€while€the€appellant€and€Ms.€Hammock€were€living€with€her€mother,Ïthe€appellant€would€not€allow€Ms.€Hammock€to€visit€friends.€€After€they€moved€toÏhis€parents'€house,€the€appellant€would€not€allow€her€to€visit€her€mother.ÌÌà àMs.€Hammock€concluded€that€she€"was€just€scared€of€Michael,"€and€thatÏher€relationship€with€the€appellant€was€a€relationship€built€upon€fear€andÏthreats.€€For€example,€after€the€appellant€admitted€to€her€that€he€had€killed€Ms.ÏLefever,€he€told€Ms.€Hammock€that€the€Mafia€was€watching€her,€and€that,€if€sheÏever€told€anyone€what€he€had€done,€she€would€be€killed.€€On€the€day€that€Ms.ÏHammock€decided€to€leave€the€appellant,€he€again€physically€abused€her.€€TheÏState€introduced€into€evidence€a€picture€of€bruises€that€Ms.€Hammock€sufferedÏas€a€result€of€the€appellant's€abuse.€€At€the€time€of€the€suppression€hearing,€Ms.ÏHammock€and€the€appellant€had€been€divorced€for€approximately€two€years.ÌÌÓ ` ÜXÆ*ˆ,‹X Óà àThe€rule€of€marital€privilege€applicable€in€the€appellant's€case€wasÏannounced€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòMcCormick€v.€Stateóó,€186€S.W.€95€(Tenn.Ï1916).× ƒ5 ××  ×€€In€òòMcCormickóó,€186€S.W.€at€97,€the€supreme€court€held€that€"[s]oundÍpublic€policy€requires€that€neither€the€husband€nor€the€wife€shall€be€permitted€toÏtestify,€in€criminal€cases,€as€to€any€matter€coming€to€his€or€her€knowledge€byÏreason€of€the€marital€relation."€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòBurton€v.€Stateóó,€501€S.W.2d€814,€817„819€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1973);€€òòBraganóó,€No.Ï03C01„9403„CR„00121.€€Under€this€rule,€either€the€testifying€or€non„testifyingÏspouse€can€invoke€the€privilege.€€òòBraganóó,€No.€03C01„9403„CR„00121.€ÏHowever,€the€privilege€is€not€absolute.€€In€òòAdamsóó,€563€S.W.2d€at€808,€this€courtÏobserved€that€the€following€conditions€must€exist€before€a€communicationÏbetween€husband€and€wife€can€be€considered€privileged:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ(1)€€The€communications€must€originate€in€a€confidence€thatÏthey€will€not€be€disclosed.ÌÌ(2)€€This€element€of€confidentiality€must€be€essential€to€theÏfull€and€satisfactory€maintenance€of€the€relation€betweenÏthe€parties.ÌÌÌ(3)€€The€relation€must€be€one€which,€in€the€opinion€of€theÏcommunity,€ought€to€be€sedulously€fostered.ÌÌ(4)€€The€injury€that€would€inure€to€the€relation€by€theÏdisclosure€of€the€communications€must€be€greater€than€theÏbenefit€thereby€gained€for€the€correct€disposal€of€litigation.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌThe€court€in€òòAdamsóó€noted€that€exceptions€to€the€marital€privilege€generally€ariseÏfrom€the€failure€of€the€communication€to€meet€these€conditions.€€òòIdóó.€€"All€four€ofÍthese€conditions€must€exist€to€protect€the€evidence€by€the€marital€privilege."€ÏòòState€v.€Garlandóó,€617€S.W.2d€176,€183€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1981).€€Thus,€testimony€at€the€suppression€hearing€relevant€toÏthe€first€two€conditions€was€unnecessary€if€sufficient€evidence€was€presented€toÏnegate€the€last€two€conditions.ÌÌà à€In€òòGarlandóó,€617€S.W.2d€at€182„183,€this€court€observed€that€theÏapplication€of€the€marital€privilege€was€inappropriate€where€the€marriageÏbetween€the€parties€was€"extremely€tumultuous."€€Similarly,€in€this€case,€the€trialÏcourt€denied€the€appellant's€motion€to€suppress€on€the€basis€of€the€followingÏfindings€of€fact:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓSheila€(Bush)€Hammock€and€the€defendant€were€marriedÏon€August€13,€1988.€€The€Court€further€finds€that€the€partiesÏseparated€on€or€about€September€25,€1988.€€From€theÏtestimony,€the€Court€further€finds€that€a€divorce€was€grantedÏto€the€parties€approximately€two€(2)€years€prior€to€the€date€ofÏthis€hearing.€€The€Court€further€finds€that€the€marriage€wasÏextremely€turbulent€and€disturbing€from€its€beginning.€€TheÏdefendant€regularly€beat€and€physically€abused€theÏprospective€witness.€€He€subjected€her€to€various€forms€ofÏmental€and€verbal€abuse€on€a€regular€basis.€€He€threatenedÏher€with€physical€harm€and€death€if€she€ever€disclosed€anyÏof€the€crimes€which€he€allegedly€committed.€€The€threatsÏwere€made€before€and€after€the€threats€[sic]€were€allegedlyÏcommitted.ÌÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒThe€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€after€an€evidentiary€hearing€areÏafforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict;€€this€court€will€not€set€aside€the€judgment€ofÍthe€trial€court€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€itsÏfindings.€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.ÏDickóó,€872€S.W.2d€938,€943€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.Ï1993);€€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€233€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€WeÏconclude€that€the€record€supports€the€trial€court's€findings.€€Thus,€as€in€òòGarlandóó,Ï617€S.W.2d€at€183,€"we€do€not€believe€that€the€conditions€3€and€4€enumeratedÏin€òòAdamsóó€are€met."€€Therefore,€contrary€to€the€appellant's€argument€in€his€brief,Ïfurther€testimony€regarding€the€òòcontentsóó€of€the€appellant's€statements€to€Ms.ÏHammock€was€unnecessary€to€the€proper€resolution€of€the€appellant's€motion.ÌÌÓÓò òB.à8 à€WHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT'S€LIMITATION€AT€THEÏSUPPRESSION€HEARING€OF€CROSS„EXAMINATION€OFÏSHEILA€BUSH€HAMMOCK€VIOLATED€THEÏAPPELLANT'S€RIGHT€TO€CONFRONTATION€UNDERÏTHE€SIXTH€AMENDMENT€TO€THE€UNITED€STATESÏCONSTITUTION€AND€ARTICLE€I,€SECTION€9€OF€THEÏTENNESSEE€CONSTITUTION.ó óÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant€contends€that,€at€the€suppression€hearing,€he€"was€limitedÏand€restricted€from€confronting€[his]€accuser,€Sheila€Bush€(Hammock),€andÏthereby€denied€his€rights€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€and€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution."€€The€right€toÏconfrontation€set€forth€in€the€Sixth€Amendment€includes€the€right€to€conductÍcross„examination.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€However,€we€have€previously€observed,€"[I]t€is€elementaryÏthat€the€exclusion€of€immaterial€or€irrelevant€evidence€does€not€abridge€anÏaccused's€right€to€confrontation."€€òòState€v.€Marquadisóó,€649€S.W.2d€15,€17€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1982).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòDelaware€v.€Van€Arsdallóó,€475€U.S.€673,€679,€106ÏS.Ct.€1431,€1435€(1986)("trial€judges€retain€wide€latitude€insofar€as€theÏConfrontation€Clause€is€concerned€to€impose€reasonable€limits€on€...€cross„examination€based€on€concerns€about,€among€other€things,€harassment,Ïprejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€the€witness'€safety,€or€interrogation€that€isÏrepetitive€or€only€marginally€relevant");€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€611(a)€("[t]he€court€shallÏexercise€appropriate€control€over€the€presentation€of€evidence€and€conduct€ofÏthe€trial€when€necessary€to€avoid€abuse€by€counsel").€€In€other€words,€"theÏConfrontation€Clause€only€guarantees€'an€òòopportunityóó€for€effective€cross„examination,€not€cross„examination€that€is€effective€in€whatever€way,€and€toÏwhatever€extent,€the€defense€counsel€might€wish.'"€€òòPennsylvania€v.€Ritchieóó,€480ÏU.S.€39,€53,€107€S.Ct.€989,€999€(1987)(citation€omitted).€€We€have€alreadyÏconcluded€that€the€testimony€at€the€suppression€hearing€concerning€theÍcontents€of€the€appellant's€statements€to€Ms.€Hammock€would€have€beenÏsuperfluous.ÌÌà àMoreover,€this€court€has€held€that€"the€'confrontation'€guaranteed€by€theÏUnited€States€Constitution€is€confrontation€at€trial."€€òòHaggard€v.€Stateóó,€475ÏS.W.2d€186,€187€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1971).€ÏSimilarly,€in€òòRitchieóó,€480€U.S.€at€52,€107€S.Ct.€at€999,€a€plurality€of€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€observed€that€"the€right€to€confrontation€is€a€òòtrialóó€right."€ÏòòSee€alsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Sassonóó,€62€F.3d€874,€881€n.€5€(7th€Cir.€1995);€€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€De€Los€Santosóó,€819€F.2d€94,€97€(5th€Cir.€1987);€€òòUnited€States€v.ÏBoyceóó,€797€F.2d€691,€693€(8th€Cir.€1986).× ƒ7 ××  ×€€Defense€counsel€was€able€to€fullyÏand€extensively€cross„examine€Ms.€Hammock€at€trial.€€This€claim€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌÓÓò ò4.à8 àWHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT€ERRED€IN€OVERRULINGÍTHE€APPELLANT'S€MOTION€TO€SUPPRESS€THEÏTESTIMONY€OF€OTHER€INMATES.ó óÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€jailhouseÏinformants€to€testify€against€the€appellant€concerning€statements€made€by€theÏappellant€during€his€incarceration.€€The€appellant€filed€a€motion€on€October€16,Ï1992,€to€exclude€the€testimony€of€William€Moore,€Jimmy€Myers,€Billy€Goney,€andÏother€inmates,€based€on€the€allegation€that€law€enforcement€officers€asked€theÏinmates€to€elicit€statements€from€the€appellant€in€violation€of€òòMassiah€v.€UnitedÏStatesóó,€377€U.S.€201,€84€S.Ct.€1199€(1964).€€On€November€13,€1992,€anÏevidentiary€hearing€was€held€to€resolve€the€appellant's€motion.€€ÌÌà àBilly€Goney€and€Jimmy€Myers€testified€at€the€hearing.€€Billy€Goney€statedÏthat€he€was€incarcerated€with€Michael€Bush€at€the€Putnam€County€Jail€betweenÏSeptember€or€October€of€1988€and€April€of€1989.€€He€further€alleged€that,Ïapproximately€one€week€after€the€appellant€was€placed€in€the€jail,€Bobby€LaneÏand€Doug€Burgess,€investigators€with€the€Putnam€County€Sheriff's€Department,Ïasked€Goney€and€fellow€inmates,€Guy€Ramsey€and€Jimmy€Myers,€to€tapeÏconversations€with€Michael€Bush.€€The€inmates€were€told€that,€if€theyÏcooperated€with€the€police,€the€police€"would€help€[them]€out."€€The€inmatesÏalready€had€access€to€tape€recorders€and€tapes,€and€the€inmates€used€theÏequipment€to€tape€conversations€with€the€appellant.€€However,€Goney€added,ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ[W]hat€we'd€do€was€like€Jimmy€would€ask€Michael€aÍquestion,€say,€did€you€kill€that€old€woman,€and€we'd€haveÏthe€recorder€playing€and€we'd€ease€up€off€the€play€button.€ÏThen€they€would€ask€him€another€question€like,€do€you€likeÏkarate,€and€he€would€say,€yeah,€and€we'd€push€yeah€whenÏhe€was€saying€yes.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓGoney€stated€that€he€and€his€fellow€informants€made€approximately€three€tapes,Ïand€that€Jimmy€Myers,€his€half„brother,€delivered€the€tapes€to€Deputy€Lane.€ÏGoney€insisted€that€he€never€heard€the€appellant€admit€to€killing€Jodie€Lefever.ÌÌà àJimmy€Myers€also€testified€at€the€hearing.€€He€was€also€incarcerated€atÏthe€Putnam€County€Jail€in€September€of€1988.€€Indeed,€he€shared€a€cell€with€theÏappellant.€€However,€Myers€testified€that€neither€Deputy€Burgess€nor€DeputyÏLane€asked€the€inmates€to€record€conversations€with€Michael€Bush.€€Rather,ÏMyers€asserted€that€Goney€and€Ramsey€first€suggested€taping€the€appellantÏand€first€contacted€Deputies€Lane€and€Burgess.€€His€testimony€is€somewhatÏunclear€as€to€whether€the€tapes€were€made€before€or€after€the€inmatesÏcontacted€the€deputies.€€Myers€conceded€that€the€officers€may€have€been€awareÏthat€the€tapes€were€being€made.€€ÌÌà àIn€any€event,€before€the€tapes€were€made,€Myers€heard€the€appellantÏadmit€to€killing€Ms.€Lefever.ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓWell,€one€time€he€was€telling€me€and€Billy€and€Ramsey€all,€IÏmean,€he€told€us€he€tied€Ms.€Lefever€up€and€stuff€andÏstabbed€her€and€waited€on€his€wife.€€His€wife€dropped€himÏoff€and€came€back€to€pick€him€up,€and€he€went€down€to€theÍdam€and€washed€blood€off€of€him€and€stuff.€€And,€I€mean,Ïthat's€about€all€he€said.€€And€then€some€other€times€heÏwould€tell€a€different€story.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓAgain,€Myers€could€not€remember€whether€he€and€the€other€inmates€spoke€toÏthe€deputies€before€or€after€they€overheard€this€statement.€€Finally,€MyersÏconceded€on€cross„examination€that€it€was€common€knowledge€at€the€jail€thatÏinmates€could€get€help€from€the€police€if€they€provided€information.€€However,Ïhe€testified€that€he€was€not€promised€any€assistance€in€return€for€his€testimony.ÌÌà àDeputy€Burgess€testified€at€the€hearing€that€he€never€asked€any€of€theÏinmates€to€tape€conversations€with€Michael€Bush,€nor,€to€his€knowledge,€hadÏany€other€deputy€made€such€a€request.€€Moreover,€he€never€received€any€tapes,Ïnor€was€he€aware€that€tapes€had€been€turned€over€to€the€Sheriff's€DepartmentÏuntil€he€found€a€tape€in€Bobby€Lane's€office€the€day€before€the€hearing.€€He€wasÏnot€aware€of€any€agreement€between€jailhouse€informants€and€the€police.€€HeÏtestified€that€Billy€Goney€and,€possibly,€Jimmy€Myers€had€asked€to€speak€withÏhim€several€times.€€He€spoke€with€Goney€privately€"maybe€one€or€two"€times.€ÏHe€told€Goney€"to€keep€his€ears€open€and€if€he€heard€anything,€let€us€know."€ÏGoney€was€unable€to€provide€any€useful€information.€€At€a€subsequent€hearing,Ïon€December€10,€1992,€Burgess€stated€that€he€would€not€have€turned€toÏinmates€to€obtain€incriminating€statements€from€Michael€Bush€because€"[t]hat'sÏno€good€in€court.€€We€can't€use€it."ÌÌà àAt€the€December€10€hearing,€Deputy€Bobby€Lane€testified€that,€during€theÏcourse€of€his€investigation€of€the€Lefever€murder,€he€never€asked€inmates€toÏsecretly€record€conversations€with€the€appellant.€€Goney€approached€him€withÏtwo€tapes,€but€"[t]he€tapes€was€garbage.€€There€wasn't€any€use€in€keeping€theÏtapes."€€Lane€did€not€have€any€subsequent€conversations€with€Goney€about€theÏtapes,€nor€did€Lane€talk€to€any€other€inmate.€€On€December€22,€1992,€the€trialÏcourt€denied€the€appellant's€motion,€observing,€"I€think€it's€a€question€ofÏcredibility€for€the€jury€to€decide."ÌÌà àAt€trial,€no€tapes€were€introduced€into€evidence.€€However,€Jimmy€MyersÏand€William€Roger€Moore€testified.€€Jimmy€Myers€again€stated€that€he€had€heardÏthe€appellant€admit€to€killing€Jodie€Lefever.€€Bush€also€told€Myers€that€"he€wasÏgoing€to€try€to€make€people€think€he€was€crazy."€€Myers€testified€that€theseÏstatements€were€not€recorded,€as€the€informants€began€taping€the€appellantÏonly€after€the€appellant's€lawyers€advised€him€against€talking€to€fellow€inmatesÏabout€the€murder.€€After€the€appellant€was€so€advised,€he€changed€his€storyÏseveral€times.€€Finally,€Myers€insisted€that€he€was€never€offered€any€form€ofÏcompensation€in€return€for€his€testimony.€€On€cross„examination,€he€concededÏthat€he€had€written€a€letter€to€an€assistant€district€attorney,€in€which€he€stated,€"IfÏyou€can€help€me€out€in€any€way,€I€promise€you€that€you€will€not€be€sorry."ÌÌà àFinally,€William€Roger€Moore,€another€fellow€inmate€of€Michael€BushÏfollowing€the€appellant's€incarceration€at€the€Putnam€County€Jail,€also€testifiedÏat€trial.€€Moore€stated€that,€as€there€was€very€little€to€do€at€the€jail,€BushÏapproached€him€and€initiated€several€conversations.€€The€appellant€admitted€toÏMoore€that€he€had€killed€Jodie€Lefever.€€The€appellant€also€stated€that€he€wasÏgoing€to€"make€a€ploy€for€craziness."€€Moore€imparted€this€information€to€SpecialÏAgent€O'Rear,€an€agent€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation.€€MooreÏtestified€that€he€was€not€offered€any€compensation€in€return€for€his€cooperation,Ïnor€did€he€ask€for€any€compensation.ÌÌà àAgain,€the€appellant€argues€that€any€incriminating€statements€made€byÏthe€appellant€to€fellow€inmates€were€elicited€in€violation€of€òòMassiahóó.€€We€note,Ïinitially,€that,€because€only€Jimmy€Myers€and€William€Moore€testified€at€trial,€theÏdenial€of€the€motion€to€suppress€with€respect€to€Goney€and€other€inmates,€evenÏif€erroneous,€was€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€òòHartman€v.€Stateóó,€896€S.W.2d€94,€100€(Tenn.Ï1995);€€òòState€v.€Sparksóó,€727€S.W.2d€480,€482€(Tenn.€1987),€òòpost„convictionÏrelief€grantedóó,€No.€03S01„9212„CR„00105€(Tenn.€May€10,€1993).€€With€respectÏto€Myers€and€Moore,€"the€clear€rule€of€òòMassiahóó€is€that€once€adversaryÏproceedings€have€commenced€against€an€individual,€he€has€a€right€to€legalÏrepresentation€when€the€government€interrogates€him."€€òòBrewer€v.€Williamsóó,€430ÏU.S.€387,€401,€97€S.Ct.€1232,€1240€(1977).€€Thus,€in€order€to€find€a€òòMassiahóóÏviolation,€a€court€must€first€determine€(1)€whether€adversary€proceedings€hadÍcommenced;€(2)€whether€the€informant€was€a€government€agent;€and€(3)Ïwhether€the€agent€"interrogated"€the€appellant€within€the€meaning€of€òòMassiahóó.ÌÌà àThe€initiation€of€adversary€proceedings€is€"marked€by€formal€charge,Ïwhich€[has€been]€construe[d]€to€be€an€arrest€warrant,€or€at€the€time€of€theÏpreliminary€hearing€in€those€rare€cases€where€a€preliminary€hearing€is€notÏpreceded€by€an€arrest€warrant,€or€by€indictment€or€presentment."€€òòState€v.ÏMitchellóó,€593€S.W.2d€280,€286€(Tenn.€1980),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€449€U.S.€845,€101ÏS.Ct.€128€(1980).€€Clearly,€at€the€time€the€appellant€allegedly€made€theÏincriminating€statements€to€fellow€inmates,€he€had€been€formally€charged€and,Ïprobably,€indicted.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€ÌÌà àIt€is€arguably€unclear€whether€Myers€was€acting€as€a€government€agent.€ÏThis€court€in€òòState€v.€Dunnóó,€No.€85„356„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€JuneÏ6,€1986)€observed,€"Although€òòMassiahóó€and€it€progeny€do€not€explicitly€define€theÏterm€'state€agent,'€the€conduit€in€each€of€these€cases€was€clearly€a€state€agent,Ïoperating€as€such,€when€the€conversations€occurred."€€Thus,€any€admissionsÏmade€by€the€appellant€òòbeforeóó€law€enforcement€officers€became€involved€would,Ïof€course,€be€admissible.€€òòHartmanóó,€896€S.W.2d€at€100.€€"[T]he€SixthÍAmendment€is€not€violated€whenever€„€by€luck€or€happenstance€„€the€StateÏobtains€incriminating€statements€from€the€accused€after€the€right€to€counsel€hasÏattached."€€òòMaine€v.€Moultonóó,€474€U.S.€159,€176,€106€S.Ct.€477,€487€(1985).€€ÌÌà àAgain,€at€the€suppression€hearing,€Goney€testified€that€Deputies€BurgessÏand€Lane€asked€inmates,€including€Myers,€to€record€conversations€with€theÏappellant.€€However,€Goney's€testimony€was€largely€contradicted€by€theÏtestimony€of€both€deputies€and€by€the€testimony€of€Myers.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€At€trial,€MyersÏrecounted€statements€by€the€appellant,€overheard€prior€to€the€recording€of€anyÏconversations.€€At€the€suppression€hearing,€Myers€could€not€remember€whetherÏhe€heard€these€statements€before€or€after€first€talking€to€Burgess€and€Lane.€ÏBoth€deputies,€for€the€most€part,€denied€enlisting€inmates€to€obtain€statementsÏfrom€the€appellant,€although€Deputy€Burgess€admitted€that€he€might€have€askedÏòòGoneyóó€"to€keep€his€ears€open."ÌÌà àEven€assuming€that€Myers€was€a€state€agent,€the€appellant€at€theÏsuppression€hearing€also€carried€the€burden€of€demonstrating€"that€the€policeÏand€their€informant€took€some€action,€beyond€merely€listening,€that€wasÏdesigned€deliberately€to€elicit€incriminating€remarks."€€òòKuhlmann€v.€Wilsonóó,€477ÏU.S.€436,€456,€459,€106€S.Ct.€2616,€2628,€2630€(1986).€€At€the€suppressionÍhearing,€Goney€testified€that€he€and€Guy€Ramsey€recorded€conversations€withÏthe€appellant,€during€which€they€attempted,€with€Myers'€assistance,€to€elicit€and,Ïindeed,€fabricate€a€confession.× ƒ: ××  ×€€However,€Myers€testified€that€he€did€notÏparticipate€in€the€recording€of€any€statements.€€Rather,€he€testified€both€at€theÏsuppression€hearing€and€at€trial€that€he€merely€overheard€the€appellant€confessÏto€the€murder€of€Ms.€Lefever.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€thisÏstatement€was€made€in€response€to€efforts€by€the€other€inmates€to€stimulateÏconversation€about€the€crime€charged.€€ÌÌà àGiven€the€conflicting€testimony€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearing,€theÏrecord€supports€the€trial€court's€denial€of€the€appellant's€motion€with€respect€toÏJimmy€Myers.€€The€findings€made€by€the€trial€court€after€an€evidentiary€hearingÏare€afforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict;€€this€court€will€not€set€aside€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderatesÏagainst€its€findings.€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544€(Tenn.€1994);€ÏòòState€v.€Dickóó,€872€S.W.2d€938,€943€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ï(Tenn.€1993);€€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€233€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).ÌÌà àIn€any€event,€assuming€for€the€sake€of€argument€that€Myers€was€a€stateÏagent€òòandóó€assuming€that€he€"interrogated"€the€appellant€within€the€meaning€ofÍòòMassiahóó,€the€admission€at€trial€of€Myers'€testimony€was€harmless€error.€€òòSeeóóÏòòHartmanóó,€896€S.W.2d€at€100;€€òòSparksóó,€727€S.W.2d€at€482.€€William€MooreÏtestified€at€trial€concerning€almost€identical€statements€made€by€the€appellant€toÏhim€in€the€Putnam€County€Jail.€€The€record€is€devoid€of€evidence€that€MooreÏwas€a€state€agent€at€the€time€of€his€conversations€with€Michael€Bush,€nor€isÏthere€evidence€that€he€made€any€effort€to€elicit€statements€from€the€accusedÏabout€the€crime€charged.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÓÓò ò5.à8 àWHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT€ERRED€IN€OVERRULINGÏTHE€APPELLANT'S€OBJECTION€TO€THEÏINTRODUCTION€OF€CERTAIN€PHOTOGRAPHS€OF€THEÏVICTIM.ó ó€€ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€his€motionÏto€suppress€certain€photographs€of€the€victim.€€Specifically,€he€insists€that€theÏpictures€were€admitted€only€for€the€purpose€of€inflaming€the€jury,€thus,€theirÏprejudicial€effect€outweighed€their€probative€value.€€Additionally,€the€appellantÏargues€that€the€photographs€had€no€probative€value€in€light€of€the€vividÏdescription€of€the€victim's€body€given€in€Officer€Lane's€testimony.ÌÌà àDuring€a€jury„out€hearing,€the€State€attempted€to€present€fourÏphotographs€of€the€victim.€€Exhibit€25€was€a€photograph€of€the€victim€as€she€wasÍdiscovered€by€Officer€Lane.€€Exhibit€26€was€a€photograph€which€showedÏwounds€to€the€victim's€head.€€Exhibit€27€was€a€photograph€which€showed€theÏlower€dental€plate€of€the€victim€on€the€floor€next€to€her€body.€€Exhibit€28€showedÏa€wound€to€the€victim's€left€knee.€€The€State€argued€that€the€photographs€wereÏrelevant€to€corroborate€medical€testimony,€to€aid€the€jury€in€determining€theÏextent€of€the€wounds,€and€to€establish€the€element€of€malice.€€The€appellantÏresponded€that€the€pictures€did€not€add€to€testimonial€value€as€Officer€Lane€hadÏalready€described€the€wounds€in€great€detail.€€The€appellant€concluded€that,Ïmoreover,€the€pictures€were€more€prejudicial€than€probative.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€accepted€the€State's€argument€that€Exhibit€25€wasÏprobative€to€show€the€placement€of€the€wounds€on€the€body,€Exhibit€27€wasÏprobative€as€to€the€amount€of€force€that€was€used€to€dislodge€the€dental€plateÏfrom€the€victim's€mouth,€and€Exhibit€28€was€probative€to€show€additionalÏwounds€on€the€body.€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€probative€valueÏof€these€three€photographs€was€not€outweighed€by€their€prejudicial€effect.€ÏHowever,€the€trial€court€sustained€the€appellant's€objection€to€Exhibit€26,€findingÏit€to€be€the€most€gruesome€of€the€pictures,€and€finding€it€to€not€accurately€depictÏthe€victim's€wounds.ÌÌà àTo€be€admissible,€a€photograph€must€be€relevant€to€some€issue€at€trial,Ïand€its€prejudicial€effect€must€not€outweigh€its€probative€value.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,Í564€S.W.2d€947,€951€(Tenn.€1978);€òòsee€alsoóó€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€The€discretionÏof€a€trial€judge€in€allowing€the€admission€of€a€photograph€into€evidence€will€notÏbe€overturned€except€upon€a€clear€showing€of€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.ÏBordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€226€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citations€omitted);€€òòseeÏalsoóó€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€542€(Tenn.€1994).€€ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€it€was€not€error€to€admit€the€photographs€in€this€case.€ÏThe€photographs€were€relevant€to€supplement€the€testimony€of€the€medicalÏexaminer€and€the€officer€who€initially€investigated€the€crime€scene€inÏestablishing€the€cause€of€death,€€òòseeóó€€òòStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€542,€and€toÏshow€the€brutality€of€the€attack€and€extent€of€force€used€against€the€victim,€fromÏwhich€the€jury€could€infer€malice.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€551Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÌÓÓò ò6.à8 àWHETHER€THE€APPELLANT€IS€ENTITLED€TO€RELIEFÏBASED€ON€ALLEGATIONS€OF€PROSECUTORIALÏMISCONDUCT.ÌÌÌÓÓà@ àA.€€LACK€OF€REMORSEó óà à€€Ìà àThe€appellant€first€argues€that€the€prosecutor€erroneously€elicitedÏtestimony€concerning€the€appellant's€lack€of€remorse€from€three€witnesses.€ÍWhen€questioned€by€the€prosecutor€as€to€whether€the€appellant€had€expressedÏany€remorse€for€what€he€had€done,€William€Roger€Moore,€an€inmate€who€hadÏbeen€incarcerated€with€the€appellant,€answered€that€the€appellant€hadÏexpressed€remorse€only€in€that€he€had€gotten€caught.€€When€asked€whether€heÏhad€observed€any€sadness€on€the€part€of€the€appellant€when€the€appellant€hadÏshown€him€a€newspaper€account€of€the€murder,€James€Mullins,€a€friend€of€theÏappellant,€testified€that€he€had€observed€no€sadness.€€When€asked€whether€theÏappellant€had€expressed€any€remorse€or€sadness€for€what€he€had€done,€SheliaÏBush€(Hammock)€testified€that€he€had€expressed€no€remorse.ÌÌÌà àThe€failure€of€defense€counsel€to€make€a€contemporaneous€objectionÏwaives€consideration€of€the€issue€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòTeague€v.€Stateóó,€772€S.W.2dÏ915,926€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1989);€òòState€v.ÏKillebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€235€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,Ï(Tenn.€1988);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€A€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€of€theÏthree€statements€to€which€the€appellant€now€objects,€the€appellant€onlyÏobjected€to€the€prosecutor's€question€to€James€Mullins,€and€the€objection€wasÏbased€on€the€fact€that€it€was€a€leading€question.€€We€conclude€that€the€appellantÏhas€waived€this€issue.ÌÌÌò òà@ àB.€€IRRELEVANT€OPINION€EVIDENCEÌó óà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€prosecutor€erred€in€elicitingÏirrelevant€opinion€evidence€from€Jimmy€Myers,€another€inmate€who€had€beenÏincarcerated€with€the€appellant.€€On€redirect€examination,€the€prosecutor€askedÏMyers€why€he€was€in€court€testifying.€€Myers€responded€that€it€"could€be€myÏmother€or€my€grandmother,€someone€that's€you€know,€laying€there€dead€youÏknow.€€I€don't€think€someone€should€kill€someone€like€that€and€just€walk€theÏstreets.€€Get€out€scot€free."ÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€prosecutor€deliberately€brought€beforeÏthe€jury€evidence€which€was€wholly€irrelevant€to€the€appellant's€guilt€orÏinnocence.€€However,€the€record€reveals€that€on€cross„examination,€appellant'sÏcounsel€questioned€Myers€extensively€concerning€his€true€motivation€forÏtestifying.€€We€conclude€that€the€question€asked€by€the€prosecutor€wasÏappropriate,€notwithstanding€the€witness'€nonresponsive€statement.€This€issueÏis€without€merit.€Ìò òÌà@ àÌà@ àC.€€CLOSING€ARGUMENT€Ìà@ à(1)€MASSIVE€INVESTIGATIONÌà àó óThe€appellant€also€argues€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€reversal€of€hisÏconviction€due€to€prosecutorial€misconduct€during€closing€argument.€€HeÍobjects€to€the€prosecutor's€remark€that€the€investigation€was€"the€most€extensiveÏinvestigation€...€that€I've€ever€heard€of"€and€to€the€prosecutor's€statement€that€theÏappellant€was€the€only€suspect€resulting€from€the€investigation.€€The€appellantÏcontends€that€evidence€of€such€an€investigation€was€not€before€the€jury,€andÏthat€the€prosecutor's€comments€exceeded€the€scope€of€proper€argument.ÌÌà àOur€supreme€court€has€observed€that€"argument€of€counsel€is€a€valuableÏprivilege€that€should€not€be€unduly€restricted.€€Our€courts€seek€to€give€greatÏlatitude€to€counsel€in€expressing€their€views€of€the€case€to€the€jury."€€òòSmith€v.ÏStateóó,€527€S.W.2d€737,€739€(Tenn.€1975).€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885ÏS.W.2d€797,€809€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€trial€judge€has€wide€discretion€in€controllingÏthe€argument€of€counsel.€€òòSmithóó,€527€S.W.2d€at€739.€€Generally,€on€appeal,€thisÏcourt€will€not€interfere€with€the€exercise€of€that€discretion€in€the€absence€ofÏabuse€thereof.€€òòIdóó.€€However,€if€the€prosecutor's€remarks,€in€fact,€"stray[ed]Ïbeyond€the€wide€latitude€afforded,"€this€court€should€consider,€among€otherÏfactors,€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor,€any€curative€measures€undertaken€by€theÏcourt,€the€improper€conduct€viewed€in€context€and€in€light€of€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€of€the€case,€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€remarks€with€any€otherÏerrors€in€the€record,€and€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.€€òòBigbeeóó,Ï885€S.W.2d€at€809;€€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1976).€€We€note€that€"curative€instructions€will€not€render€all€improper€commentsÏharmless;€€the€test€is€whether€the€conduct€...€affected€the€results€to€the€prejudiceÍof€the€appellant."€€òòState€v.€Byerleyóó,€658€S.W.2d€134,€139€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1983).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€809.ÌÌÌà àIn€arguing€that€the€investigation€was€extensive,€the€prosecutorÏspecifically€referred€to€Deputy€Richard€Smith's€testimony€that€the€Sheriff'sÏDepartment€had€interviewed€between€200€and€250€people€regarding€this€case.€ÏThe€prosecutor's€observation,€that€the€appellant€was€the€only€suspect,€wasÏsimilarly€supported€by€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial.€€We€conclude€that€theÏtrial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€allowing€the€argument.Ìò òÌÌà@ à(2)€€PROSECUTOR'S€PERSONAL€VIEWSÌó óà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€prosecutor€erred€in€referring€to€thisÏmurder€as€being€"a€murder€of€the€worst€kind,"€"one€of€the€worst€kind€of€murdersÏimaginable,"€and€"a€most€heinous€and€brutal€act."€€The€appellant€contends€thatÏthe€prosecutor€expressed€his€personal€views€of€the€offense€in€an€effort€toÏinflame€the€passions€of€the€jury.ÌÌà àHowever,€evaluating€the€prosecutor's€comments€in€light€of€his€entireÏargument,€we€conclude€that€the€comments€referred€to€the€fact€that€the€appellantÏtook€advantage€of€a€lady€who€was€a€close€friend€of€his€grandmother.€€Even€ifÍimproper,€we€do€not€view€this€argument€as€being€so€prejudicial€as€to€require€aÏnew€trial.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ìò òÌà@ àD.€€BOLSTERINGÌó óà àFinally,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€prosecutor€erred€by€improperlyÏbolstering€the€testimony€of€William€Roger€Moore€and€Shelia€Bush€(Hammock)Ïby€asking€them€if€they€were€telling€the€truth.€€He€also€asked€Ms.€Bush€if€she€wasÏhaving€dreams€about€the€case.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Carpenteróó,€773€S.W.2d.€1,€11€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóóÏòòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1989),€this€court€held€that€bolstering€was€permitted€toÏrehabilitate€an€impeached€witness€to€rebut€the€inference€that€the€witness'sÏtestimony€was€a€recent€fabrication.€€Bolstering€has€also€been€permitted€to€allowÏseemingly€inconsistent€statements€to€be€placed€into€context.€€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797ÏS.W.2d€589,€594€(Tenn.€1990).€€We€conclude€that€the€prosecutor's€questionsÏwere€not€inappropriate.ÌÌà àThe€question€asked€of€Ms.€Bush€concerning€whether€she€had€dreamsÏabout€the€offense€were€posed€in€the€context€of€remembering€things€that€she€hadÏnot€thought€of€and€explaining€why€there€had€been€inconsistencies€in€previousÏstatements.€€Again,€we€conclude€that€the€prosecutor€could€use€this€question€toÏrehabilitate€his€witness.€€This€issue€is€without€meritò ò.ÌÌÌÓÓ7.à8 àWHETHER€THE€PROSECUTOR'S€STATEMENTSÏDURING€THE€CLOSING€ARGUMENT€OF€THE€PENALTYÏPHASE€OF€THE€TRIAL€DENIED€THE€APPELLANT€A€FAIRÏTRIAL.× ƒ; ××  ×ÌÌÓÓà@ àA.€òòCALDWELLóó€VIOLATIONÌà àó óThe€appellant€first€contends€that€the€prosecutor,€in€violation€of€theÏSupreme€Court's€holding€in€òòCaldwell€v.€Mississippióó,€472€U.S.€320,€328„29,€105ÏS.Ct.€2633,€2639€(1985),€"led€the€jury€to€believe€that€the€responsibility€forÏdetermining€the€appropriateness€of€the€defendant's€death€rests€elsewhere."€ÏThe€appellant€cites€the€following€portion€of€the€prosecutor's€argument€to€theÏjury:ÌÓÓà8 àI€submit€to€you€that€the€most€important€day€in€the€defendant's€lifeÏwas€the€day€that€he€chose€„„€not€you;€not€I;€„„€the€day€that€he€choseÏto€go€to€the€home€of€Jodie€Lefever€and€murder€her€horribly,Ïheinously,€atrociously,€in€cold€blood.€€They'll€tell€you€that€you€haveÏa€choice€to€make€here€today,€that€is€his€life€is€literally€in€yourÏhands.€€And€I€submit€to€you,€ladies€and€gentlemen€of€the€jury,Ïthat's€not€true.€€When€he€went€to€the€home€of€Jodie€Lefever€andÏhad€her€open€the€door€as€a€friend,€he€took€his€life€in€his€ownÏhands.€€He€took€his€life€in€his€own€hands.ÌÓÓÌà àWhen€reviewing€an€alleged€òòCaldwellóó€error,€this€court€must€first€determineÏwhether€the€prosecutor's€comments€minimized€the€jury's€role€in€determining€theÍappropriateness€of€death.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€767€S.W.2d€387,€399€(Tenn.€1989),Ïòòcert.€deniedóó,€497€U.S.€1010,€110€S.Ct.€3254€(1990).€€If€the€prosecutor'sÏcomments€were€improper,€we€must€then€decide€whether€the€trial€judge'sÏinstructions€to€the€jury€sufficiently€corrected€the€error.€€òòIdóó.€€"If€the€Court€cannotÏsay€the€comments€had€no€effect€on€the€sentencing,€then€the€jury's€decision€doesÏnot€meet€the€standard€of€reliability€required€by€the€Eighth€Amendment."€€òòState€v.ÏIrickóó,€762€S.W.2d€121,€131€(Tenn.€1988),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€489€U.S.€1072,€109€S.Ct.Ï1357€(1989).ÌÌà àWe€have€previously€observed€that€the€State€may€properly€argue€that€aÏdefendant€is€the€"author€of€his€own€fate."€€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9105„CR„00149€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994),Ïòòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€115€S.Ct.€1129€(1995).€€In€any€case,€the€prosecutor'sÏcomments€must€be€evaluated€in€the€context€of€the€total€argument€by€the€partiesÏand,€of€course,€the€trial€court's€instructions€to€the€jury€about€its€obligations€underÏthe€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€733€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óóÏU.S.€òò€€€óó,€115€S.Ct.€909€(1995).€€ÌÌà àImmediately€following€the€quoted€portion€of€the€prosecutor's€argument,Ïthe€prosecutor€reminded€the€jurors€that€they€had€been€asked€during€voir€direÏwhether€they€would€be€able€to€impose€the€death€penalty€if€the€State€were€ableÏto€prove€that€aggravating€factors€outweighed€any€mitigating€factors.€€TheÍprosecutor€then€reviewed€the€aggravating€circumstances€presented€by€theÏState.€€During€rebuttal€argument,€the€prosecutor€again€explained€the€weighingÏprocess,€remarking,€"You€have€a€job€to€do€and€it's€a€serious€job.€€It's€probablyÏone€of€the€most€tough€things€that€you've€ever€been€called€upon€to€do€in€yourÏlife."€€Defense€counsel,€during€closing€argument,€emphasized€the€importance€ofÏthe€jury's€role€in€determining€the€appropriate€punishment.€€Defense€counselÏobserved,€"The€verdict€you€render€on€the€question€you€have€today€is€whether€aÏyoung€man€lives€or€dies.€€You€are€the€supreme€decision€makers€in€this€case."€ÏFinally,€immediately€before€the€jury€began€deliberations,€the€trial€court€correctlyÏinstructed€the€jury€as€to€their€responsibility€for€determining€the€appropriateÏpunishment.€€We€conclude,€therefore,€that€even€if€the€prosecutor's€comments,€byÏthemselves,€violated€òòCaldwellóó,€the€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€ò òÌÌà@ àB.€PROSECUTORIAL€EXPERTISEÌó óà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€prosecutor€alluded€to€prosecutorialÏexpertise€when€she€asked€that€the€jury€impose€the€death€penalty.€€That€is,€theÏprosecutor,€according€to€the€appellant,€argued€that€the€jury€should€impose€theÏdeath€penalty€because€the€State,€in€its€expertise,€chose€to€seek€the€deathÏpenalty.€€However,€the€record€reveals€that,€in€the€portion€of€the€argument€toÏwhich€the€appellant€refers,€the€prosecutor€merely€reviewed€the€facts€of€the€caseÏand€concluded€that€"[i]f€that's€not€a€set€of€circumstances€that€deserves€the€deathÍpenalty,€one€would€wonder€what€it€takes."€€We€conclude€that€the€prosecutor'sÏargument€did€not€rely€upon€prosecutorial€expertise,€and€that€this€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.Ìò òÌà@ àC.€DENIGRATION€OF€MITIGATING€EVIDENCEÌó óà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€prosecutor€misled€and€inflamed€theÏjury€by€denigrating€the€appellant's€mitigating€evidence,€characterizing€theÏevidence€as€an€"excuse"€which€should€be€disregarded.€€First,€our€supreme€courtÏfound€"nothing€wrong€with€counsel's€argument"€in€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2dÏ908,€922€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€116€S.Ct.€99€(1995),€a€case€inÏwhich€the€prosecutor€similarly€referred€to€the€defendant's€mitigating€evidence€asÏan€excuse.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€No.€02S01„9112„CR„00064€(Tenn.€May€23,Ï1994),€òòrehearing€grantedóó,€(Tenn.€May€16,€1995).€€Second,€the€record€revealsÏthat,€although€the€State€generally€downplayed€the€mitigating€evidenceÏpresented€by€the€appellant,€the€prosecutor,€during€rebuttal,€conceded€that€twoÏmitigating€factors,€the€appellant's€youth€and€his€lack€of€a€significant€criminalÏhistory,€had€been€proven.€€During€the€course€of€argument,€the€prosecutor€alsoÏexplained€that€the€appellant€could€"present€proof€on€anything€[he]€want[s]€to€andÏcall€it€a€mitigator.€€Whether€it's€a€mitigator€or€not€is€up€to€you."€€We€conclude€thatÏthe€challenged€comments€do€not€rise€to€the€level€of€reversible€error.ÌÌò òà@ àD.€MERCYÌó óà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€prosecutor€attempted€to€discourageÏthe€jury's€consideration€of€mercy.€€Specifically,€in€rebuttal,€the€prosecutorÏargued,€"We€want€you€to€use€the€same€mercy€that€this€defendant€used€on€JodieÏLefever€as€she€lay€helpless€in€her€floor."€€Our€supreme€court€has€observed€thatÏthis€argument€"encourage[s]€the€jury€to€make€a€retaliatory€sentencing€decision,Ïrather€than€a€decision€based€on€a€reasoned€moral€response€to€the€evidence,"Ïand€is€therefore€improper.€€òòBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€812.€€However,€the€recordÏreveals€that€the€trial€court€sustained€the€appellant's€objection€to€the€prosecutor'sÏremark.€€Moreover,€at€the€conclusion€of€argument,€the€trial€court€instructed€theÏjury€that€they€could€"decide€to€sentence€the€appellant€to€life€imprisonmentÏsimply€because€based€on€the€evidence€introduced€at€either€the€guilt/innocenceÏor€sentencing€phase€at€this€trial€you€find€it€appropriate€to€exercise€mercy."€€WeÏconclude€that€the€appellant€was€not€unduly€prejudiced€by€the€prosecutor'sÏstatement.Ìò òÌÌà@ àE.€MISCELLANEOUSÌó óà àThe€appellant€complains€that€the€prosecutor€waived€the€murder€weaponÏbefore€the€jury.€€He€also€asserts€that€the€prosecutor€improperly€argued€that€theÏdeath€penalty€would€protect€all€the€"other€Jodie€Lefevers€of€the€world."€€Finally,Ïthe€appellant€argues€that€the€prosecutor,€during€argument,€impermissiblyÏremarked€that€the€appellant's€expert€witnesses€received€a€fee€for€their€services.ÌÌà àFirst,€the€murder€weapon€was€properly€introduced€into€evidence€at€trialÏand,€therefore,€could€be€displayed€to€the€jury€and€otherwise€referred€to€duringÏthe€State's€closing€argument.€€Moreover,€the€prosecutor€is€an€advocate€and€isÏentitled€to€pursue€his€role€with€thoroughness€and€vigor.€€òòPost€v.€Stateóó,€580ÏS.W.2d€801,€808€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1979).€ÏSecond,€although€argument€based€on€general€deterrence€and,€perhaps,Ïdeterrence€of€the€defendant,€is€in€fact€improper,€€òòseeóó€òòIrickóó,€762€S.W.2d€at€131,Ïthe€trial€court€sustained€the€appellant's€objection€to€the€prosecutor's€remark.€ÏFinally,€with€respect€to€any€remarks€addressing€fees€paid€to€expert€witnesses,ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€616€provides,€"A€party€may€offer€evidence€by€cross„examination,Ïextrinsic€evidence,€or€both,€that€a€witness€is€biased€in€favor€of€or€prejudicedÏagainst€a€party€or€another€witness."€€Thus,€in€cross„examining€the€appellant'sÏexpert€witnesses€during€trial,€the€prosecutor€properly€inquired€about€fees.€ÏTherefore,€the€prosecutor's€statements€during€closing€argument€were€groundedÏin€the€proof€presented€at€trial.€€ÌÌà à"Closing€argument€must€be€temperate,€must€be€predicated€on€evidenceÏintroduced€during€the€trial€of€a€case,€and€must€be€pertinent€to€the€issues€beingÏtried."€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€No.€02C01„9305„CR„00080€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏJackson,€October€19,€1994),€òòperm.€to€appeal€grantedóó,€(Tenn.€1995).€€òòSee€alsoóóÏòòState€v.€Tysonóó,€603€S.W.2d€748,€754€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€We€concludeÍthat€the€State's€argument€largely€complied€with€this€standard,€and€that€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€controlling€closing€argument€during€theÏpenalty€phase€of€the€trial.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÓÓò ò8.à8 àWHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT€PROPERLY€CHARGEDÏTHE€JURY€REGARDING€THE€CREDIBILITY€OFÏWITNESSES.ÌÌÓÓÌà àó óThe€appellant€contends€that€the€jury€instructions€given€by€the€trial€judgeÏregarding€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€impeachment€of€witnesses,€and€theÏmethod€of€resolving€conflicts€in€the€testimony€of€witnesses€unconstitutionallyÏrestrained€the€jury€in€their€determination€of€credibility.ÌÌà àThe€instructions€about€which€the€appellant€complains€are€the€pattern€juryÏinstructions€for€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€impeachment€of€witnesses.€ÏT.P.I.€„„€Crim.€ðð€ðð€€37.01,€37.02.€€Both€of€these€instructions€have€been€held€byÏthis€court€to€be€a€proper€statement€of€the€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Glebockóó,€616ÏS.W.2d€897,€906€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1981).€€WeÏconclude€that€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÓÓò ò9.à8 àWHETHER€THE€APPELLANT€WAS€PROPERLYÏCONVICTED€OF€FIRST€DEGREE€BURGLARY.ÌÓÓó óÌò òà@ àA.€INSUFFICIENT€EVIDENCEÌÓ ` °œXÓó óà àà àThe€appellant€contends€that€there€was€insufficient€evidence€toÏconvict€him€of€first€degree€burglary.€€He€specifically€claims€that€the€State€failedÏto€prove€that€there€had€been€a€"breaking€and€entering"€of€the€victim's€house.€ÏThe€standard€of€review€regarding€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€outlined€in€theÏappellant's€second€issue€will€be€used€to€evaluate€this€contention€also.€€òòSeeóó,Ïòòsupraóó,€€Section€III,€Issue€#2€"Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€theÏappellant's€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€as€to€the€charge€of€premeditatedÏmurder.".ÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„3„401€(1988)€defined€first€degree€burglary€as€"theÏbreaking€and€entering€into€a€dwelling€house€.€.€.€by€night,€with€intent€to€commit€aÏfelony."€€The€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€that€"[a]ny€person€who€afterÏhaving€entered€the€premises€mentioned€in€ðð39„3„401,€with€intent€to€commit€aÏfelony,€shall€break€any€premises,€or€any€safe€or€receptacle€therein,€shall€receiveÏthe€same€punishment€as€if€he€had€broken€into€the€premises€in€the€first€instance."€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„3„402€(1988).ÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€demonstrated€that€theÍappellant€had€been€granted€entry€by€the€victim.€€However,€the€breaking€elementÏcan€be€either€actual€or€constructive,€and€if€entry€was€gained€by€either€fraud€orÏthreat,€the€breaking€will€be€considered€constructive.€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860ÏS.W.2d€53,€58€fn.€11€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Since€the€appellant€was€armedÏwith€a€piece€of€wood,€there€was€at€least€circumstantial€evidence€that€theÏappellant€gained€entry€by€threat.€€Likewise,€because€the€victim€knew€theÏappellant,€entry€could€have€been€gained€by€fraud€if€the€appellant€told€her€thatÏhe€was€there€for€legitimate€business.ÌÌà àMoreover,€in€consideration€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„3„402,€the€StateÏproved€that€the€top€right„hand€dresser€drawer€had€been€opened€and€that€theÏappellant€had€opened€the€kitchen€drawer€to€remove€the€butcher€knife.€€BasedÏupon€these€facts,€we€conclude€that€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏappellant€guilty€of€first€degree€burglary.Ìò òÌÌà@ àB.€VARIANCE€Ìó óà àThe€appellant€next€argues€that€he€was€denied€notice€of€the€chargesÏbeing€brought€against€him€because€the€indictment€charged€the€breaking€andÏentering€into€the€home€while€the€proof€demonstrated€only€the€breaking€into€theÏdrawers€of€the€home.€€€He€further€contends€that€he€was€denied€due€process€andÏa€fair€trial€because€he€was€convicted€on€a€charge€never€made€in€the€indictment.€ò òÌÌà àó óIn€order€to€satisfy€constitutional€requirements,€an€indictment€must€provideÏthe€defendant€with€notice€of€the€offense€charged,€provide€the€court€with€anÏadequate€ground€upon€which€a€judgment€may€be€entered,€and€provide€theÏdefendant€with€protection€against€double€jeopardy.€€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€820€S.W.€2dÏ739,€741€(Tenn.€1991).€€Moreover,€in€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€662€S.W.2d€590,€592Ï(Tenn.€1984),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€variance€between€theÏproof€and€the€indictment€did€not€prejudice€the€defendant's€rights€if€theÏindictment€sufficiently€informed€the€defendant€of€the€charges€against€him€so€thatÏhe€could€properly€prepare€his€defense€and€not€be€misled€or€surprised€at€trialÏand€if€the€variance€was€not€such€that€it€would€present€a€danger€that€theÏdefendant€could€be€prosecuted€a€second€time€for€the€same€offense.€€ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€appellant€was€aware€of€the€facts€surrounding€the€entryÏinto€Ms.€Lefever's€home€and€the€entry€into€the€two€drawers€of€her€home.€ÏAlthough€the€appellant€contends€that€he€was€surprised€at€trial,€he€has€notÏdemonstrated€how€he€could€have€better€defended€had€he€been€given€priorÏnotice€that€the€breaking€involved€breaking€into€the€drawers.€€All€of€the€activityÏwas€involved€in€one€criminal€episode.€€For€these€reasons€we€conclude€that,Ïeven€if€a€variance€existed,€it€was€harmless€under€these€circumstances.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓò ò10.à8 àWHETHER€THE€DEATH€PENALTY€IS€CONSTITUTIONALÏAS€APPLIED€IN€THIS€CASE.à àó óÌÌÓÓò òà@ àA.€JURY€QUESTION€CONCERNING€PAROLE€ELIGIBILITYÌó óà àThe€appellant€first€contends€that€the€trial€court's€ruling€on€the€jury'sÏquestion€regarding€parole€eligibility€demonstrate's€the€unconstitutionality€of€theÏdeath€penalty€statute€in€Tennessee.€€After€the€jury€began€its€deliberations€in€theÏpenalty€phase€of€the€trial,€the€jury€passed€a€question€to€the€court€asking€aboutÏparole€eligibility€when€a€life€sentence€is€imposed.€€The€trial€court€responded€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà àI€would€in€response€to€those€questions€remind€you€that€paroleÏà àà àeligibility€is€not€an€issue€in€a€capital€case,€and€I€would€refer€youÏbackÌà àto€the€instructions€that€I€read€to€you€in€regards€to€your€other€question.€€Ìà àThat's€the€only€answers€I€can€give€you€at€this€point.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€in€òòHouston€v.€Stateóó,€593€S.W.2d€267,Ï278€(Tenn.€1980),€€held€that€"[t]he€after„effect€of€a€jury's€deliberation€is€not€aÏproper€consideration€for€the€jury."€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Payneóó,€791€S.W.2d€10,€21Ï(Tenn.€1990).ÌÌà àThe€appellant€€relies€on€the€United€States€Supreme€Court's€holding€inÏòòSimmons€v.€South€Carolinaóó,€„„U.S.„„,€114€S.Ct.€2187€(1994),€to€support€hisÏargument€that€the€trial€court's€answer€to€the€jury€was€in€error.€€In€òòSimmonsóó,€theÏCourt€held€that€the€sentencing€jury€in€a€death€penalty€case€must€be€informedÏthat€the€defendant€is€parole€ineligible€where€state€law€would€absolutely€denyÏparole€eligibility€to€a€person€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.€€However,€three€ofÏthe€justices€voting€with€the€majority€in€òòSimmonsóó€expressed€the€view€that€a€juryÏmust€be€informed€of€the€defendant's€parole€status€only€when€"the€only€availableÏalternative€sentence€to€death€is€life€imprisonment€without€possibility€of€parole."€ÏòòSimmonsóó,€„„€U.S.€at€„„,€114€S.Ct.€at€2201.€€In€all€other€cases,€informationÏconcerning€the€defendant's€parole€eligibility€need€not€be€conveyed€to€the€jury.€ÏSince€Tennessee€is€a€state€in€which€defendants€sentenced€to€life€imprisonmentÏare€eligible€for€parole,× ƒ< ××  ×€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€its€answerÏto€the€jury's€question.€€ÌÌò òà@ àB.€AGGRAVATING€CIRCUMSTANCE€(i)(6)Ìó óà àThe€appellant€also€argues€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(6)€(1988)Ïdoes€not€apply€in€this€case,€but€even€if€it€does€apply,€its€application€would€beÍunconstitutional€based€on€a€òòMiddlebrooksóó€analysis.ÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„2„203(i)(6)€(1988)€states€that€if€"[t]he€murder€wasÏcommitted€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawfulÏarrest€or€prosecution€of€the€defendant€or€another,"€this€may€be€considered€anÏaggravating€circumstance€in€a€death€penalty€prosecution.€€In€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868ÏS.W.2d€561,€580„81€(Tenn.€1993),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€forÏpurposes€of€applying€this€circumstance,€the€State€need€only€prove€that€at€leastÏone€motive€for€the€killing€was€the€prevention€of€prosecution.ò ò€€ÌÌà àó óIn€this€case,€the€jury€convicted€the€appellant€of€first€degree€burglary.€€InÏorder€to€do€so,€the€jury€had€to€find€that€the€appellant€entered€the€victim's€homeÏwith€the€intent€to€commit€larceny.× ƒ= ××  ×€€The€evidence€supports€this€finding.€€Also,Ïthe€evidence€was€uncontested€that€the€victim€knew€the€appellant.€€Under€theseÏfacts,€a€reasonable€juror€could€have€found€that€the€appellant€killed€the€victim,€inÏpart,€ÌÌbecause€he€did€not€want€her€to€identify€him€as€the€perpetrator€of€a€burglary.€ÏTherefore,€aggravating€circumstance€(i)(6)€was€applicable€and€properly€foundÍby€the€jury.ÌÌÌò òà@ àC.€NARROWING€OF€DEATH€PENALTY€ELIGIBLE€POPULATIONÌó óà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€application€of€aggravatingÏcircumstance€(i)(6)€(that€the€murder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoidingÏarrest€or€prosecution)€is€unconstitutional€in€that€it€would€be€present€in€everyÏpremeditated€murder€case,€and€thus€it€would€not€sufficiently€narrow€the€deathÏpenalty€eligible€population.€€The€appellant's€argument€is€misplaced.€€In€òòState€v.ÏMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€346€(Tenn.€1992),€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€determined€that€in€light€of€the€broad€definition€of€felony€murder€and€theÏduplicating€language€of€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance,€noÏnarrowing€occurred€under€the€statute€in€that€defendant's€case.€€Thus,€when€aÏdefendant€is€convicted€of€felony€murder,€that€aggravating€circumstance€cannotÏapply€because€it€duplicates€the€elements€of€the€offense.ÌÌà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€however,€the€prosecution€was€not€statutorily€requiredÏto€prove€that€the€appellant€killed€the€victim€because€he€knew€that€she€couldÏidentify€him€to€sustain€his€conviction€for€first€degree€murder.€€We€conclude€that,Ïas€applied€to€the€facts€of€this€case,€aggravating€circumstance€(i)(6)€sufficientlyÏnarrows€the€persons€eligible€for€the€death€penalty€and€reasonably€justifies€theÏimposition€of€a€more€severe€sentence€upon€the€appellant€compared€to€othersÍfound€guilty€of€murder.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓÓò òÌÌÌÌÌÌ11.à8 à€WHETHER€THE€APPELLANT€WAS€GIVEN€PROPERÏNOTICE€OF€THE€AGGRAVATING€CIRCUMSTANCESÏUPON€WHICH€THE€STATE€INTENDED€TO€RELY.ó ó€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant€contends€that€he€was€not€provided€sufficient€notice€of€theÏfacts€supporting€the€aggravating€circumstance€that€"[t]he€murder€was€committedÏfor€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrest€orÏprosecution€of€the€defendant€or€another."€€Although€the€appellant€requested€aÏbill€of€particulars€for€information€concerning€this€circumstance,€the€State€did€notÏreply.ÌÌà àTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€7(c)€allows€the€court€to€direct€the€filing€of€a€bill€ofÏparticulars€"so€as€to€adequately€identify€the€offense€charged."€€"This€provision€isÏto€be€construed€to€serve€that€òòsingular€purposeóó,€and€is€not€meant€to€be€used€forÏpurposes€of€broad€discovery."€€(emphasis€added)€Advisory€CommissionÏComments,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€7.€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2dÏ530€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Wisemanóó,€643€S.W.2d€354€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€ÏTherefore,€Rule€7(c)€is€not€applicable€to€the€sentencing€phase€of€theÍproceedings.ÌÌà àTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.3(b)€requires€the€State€to€provide€notice€of€its€intentÏto€seek€the€death€penalty€no€less€than€thirty€days€prior€to€trial.€€The€rule€alsoÏrequires€the€State€to€specify€the€aggravating€circumstances€upon€which€it€tendsÏto€rely€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Specification€may€be€satisfied€by€a€citation€toÏthe€aggravating€circumstance.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.3(b).ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€State€amended€its€notice€to€seek€the€deathÏpenalty€to€include€the€subsection€(i)(6)€aggravating€factor€on€November€5,€1992,Ïwell€within€the€statutorily€mandated€time€period.× ƒ> ××  ×€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÓÓò ò12.à8 à€WHETHER€THE€JURY€INSTRUCTION€AS€TO€THEÏ"HEINOUS,€ATROCIOUS,€OR€CRUEL"€NATURE€OF€THEÏCRIME€WAS€IMPROPERLY€GIVEN.ÌÌÌÓÓà@ àA.€€PROPER€INSTRUCTION€WHEN€OFFENSE€WAS€COMMITTEDÌà àó óThe€appellant€first€contends€that€the€jury€was€not€properly€instructed€onÏthe€aggravating€circumstance€concerning€the€"heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel"Ïnature€of€the€crime.€€Before€1989,€a€statutory€aggravating€circumstance€was€thatÏ"[t]he€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involvedÍtorture€or€depravity€of€mind."€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)€(repealedÏ1989).€€In€1989,€the€statute€was€amended€to€provide€as€an€aggravating€factorÏthat€"[t]he€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involvedÏtorture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death."€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)€(1991).€€The€trial€court€erroneouslyÏinstructed€the€jury€under€the€1989€definition.ÌÌÌà àThe€appellant€cites€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€534€(Tenn.Ï1994)€and€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€No.€02S01„9112„CR„00064€(Tenn.€May€23,€1994),Ïòòreh'g€grantedóó,€(May€16,€1995),€for€the€proposition€that€a€reversal€is€required€if€aÏjury€is€not€instructed€with€the€law€as€it€existed€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€In€bothÏof€these€cases,€however,€the€jury€was€instructed€on€old€law,€which€held€theÏState€to€a€lesser€standard€of€proof.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€the€jury€was€given€theÏdefinition€of€"heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel"€under€the€new€statute,€which€requiredÏa€higher€burden€on€the€State€to€prove€that€the€act€involved€torture€or€seriousÏphysical€abuse.€€In€reviewing€the€entire€record€in€this€cause,€we€are€satisfiedÏthat€this€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌÌò òà@ àB.€UNCONSTITUTIONALLY€VAGUEÌó óà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€jury€instructions€wereÏunconstitutionally€vague.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€however,€has€heldÏthat€under€either€definition€of€"heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel,"€the€statutoryÏaggravating€circumstance€is€not€unconstitutionally€vague.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,Ï875€S.W.2d€253,€267€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€181€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€We€conclude€that€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÓÓò ò13.à8 à€WHETHER€THE€STATE€INTRODUCED€EVIDENCE€INÏVIOLATION€OF€THE€APPELLANT'S€FIFTH€AND€SIXTHÏAMENDMENT€RIGHTS€AT€SENTENCING.ÌÌÌÓÓà àó óThe€appellant€contends€that€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Zillur€Athar,€a€practicingÏpsychiatrist€who€had€treated€the€appellant€while€he€was€a€patient€at€M.T.M.H.I.,€Ïand€Edean€Gerdes,€the€treatment€coordinator€at€M.T.M.H.I.,€was€improperlyÏintroduced€into€evidence.€€The€appellant€cites€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏdecision€in€òòEstelle€v.€Smithóó,€451€U.S.€454,€470,€101€S.Ct.€1866,€1876€(1981),€forÏthe€proposition€that€once€a€capital€defendant€has€been€formally€charged,€hisÏSixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€and€his€Fifth€Amendment€right€againstÏcompelled€self„incrimination€precludes€the€State€from€subjecting€the€defendantÏto€any€psychiatric€examination€concerning€future€dangerousness€without€firstÏinforming€the€defendant€that€he€had€the€right€to€remain€silent€and€withoutÏnotifying€counsel€as€to€what€the€psychiatric€examination€would€encompass.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòBuchanan€v.€Kentuckyóó,€483€U.S.€402,€422„23,€107€S.Ct.€2906,€2917,Ï2918€(1987),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€if€a€defendant€requestsÏa€psychiatric€examination€in€order€to€prove€a€mental„status€defense,€he€waivesÏthe€right€to€raise€a€Fifth€Amendment€challenge€to€the€prosecution's€use€ofÏevidence€obtained€through€that€examination€to€rebut€the€defense.€€The€CourtÏalso€held€that€there€was€no€Sixth€Amendment€violation€where€counsel€hadÏrequested€the€psychiatric€evaluation€and€counsel€was€on€notice€that€if€heÏintended€to€put€on€a€"mental€status€defense,"€he€would€have€to€anticipate€theÏuse€of€psychological€evidence€by€the€prosecution€in€rebuttal.€€òòBuchananóó,€483ÏU.S.€at€424,€107€S.Ct.€at€2918.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€the€appellant€put€his€mentalÏstatus€at€issue€by€claiming€it€as€a€mitigating€factor€in€the€penalty€phase€of€theÏtrial.€€Moreover,€in€this€case,€defense€counsel€was€made€aware€of€eachÏpsychiatric€evaluation€that€was€conducted€as€each€examination€was€courtÏordered€at€the€request€of€the€appellant€or€the€State.€€We€conclude€that€€theÏtestimony€of€Dr.€Athar€and€Ms.€Gerdes€was€appropriate€rebuttal€testimony€afterÏthe€appellant€put€his€mental€status€into€issue€in€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌÓÓò ò14.à8 à€WHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT€PROPERLYÏINSTRUCTED€THE€JURY€"REGARDING€REASONABLEÏDOUBT."ó ó€€ò òÌÌÌÓÓó óà àThe€appellant€contends€that€he€was€denied€his€rights€under€Article€I,ÏSections€6,€7,€8,€16,€17,€and€18€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€and€the€Sixth,ÏEighth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution€becauseÏthe€jury€was€unconstitutionally€instructed€concerning€the€meaning€ofÏ"reasonable€doubt"€at€the€guilt€and€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€At€the€guiltÏphase€of€the€trial,€the€jury€received€the€following€instruction€concerning€theÏmeaning€of€"reasonable€doubt."ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓReasonable€doubt€is€that€doubt€engendered€by€anÏinvestigation€of€all€the€proof€in€the€case€and€an€inability,Ïafter€such€investigation,€to€let€the€mind€rest€easily€as€to€theÏcertainty€of€guilt.€€Reasonable€doubt€does€not€mean€aÏcaptious,€possible,€or€imaginary€doubt.€€Absolute€certaintyÏof€guilt€is€not€demanded€by€the€law€to€convict€of€any€criminalÏcharge,€but€moral€certainty€is€required,€and€this€certainty€isÏrequired€as€to€every€element€of€proof€necessary€toÏconstitute€the€offense.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ(charge€of€the€court,€transcript€of€the€evidence,€vol.€five,€ðð€III,€p.€681).× ƒ? ××  ×ÌÌÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€this€instruction€equating€"beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt"€with€"a€moral€certainty"€violated€his€due€process€rights€under€the€newÍstandard€set€forth€in€òòVictor€v.€Nebraskaóó,€„„„€U.S.€„„„,€114€S.Ct.€1239€(1994).€€InÏòòVictoróó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€the€phrase€"moral€certainty"Ïmay€have€lost€its€historical€meaning,€and€that€a€jury€might€"understand€it€to€allowÏconviction€on€proof€that€does€not€meet€the€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏstandard."€€òòVictoróó,€„„„€U.S.€at€„„„,€114€S.Ct.€at€1247.€€It€reasoned€that€"'moralÏcertainty,'€standing€alone,€might€not€be€recognized€by€modern€jurors€as€aÏsynonym€for€'proof€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,'€"€but€"something€less€than€theÏvery€high€level€of€probability€required€by€the€Constitution€in€criminal€cases."€€òòIdóó.€ÏWhile€the€Court€stated€that€it€did€not€condone€the€use€of€the€"moral€certainty"Ïphrase,€the€Court€held€that€the€phrase€could€pass€constitutional€muster€if€usedÏin€conjunction€with€a€modifying€instruction€that€lent€meaning€to€the€phrase.€ÏòòVictoróó,€„„„€U.S.€at€„„„,€114€S.Ct.€at€1248.× ƒ@ ××  ×€€In€order€to€meet€the€requirements€ofÏdue€process,€the€jury€instructions€must€be€examined€as€a€whole,€withoutÏconsidering€particular€phrases€out€of€context.€€òòVictoróó,€„„„€U.S.€„„„,€114€S.Ct.€atÏ1243.ÌÌà àThe€instruction€provided€to€the€jury€in€the€present€case€used€the€termÏ"moral€certainty"€in€conjunction€with€"let€the€mind€rest€easily"€and€"arise€fromÍpossibility."€€Though€neither€of€these€phrases€have€been€before€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court,× ƒA ××  ×€€the€courts€of€this€state€have€consistently€upheld€theÏconstitutionality€of€this€instruction.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.€2d€722Ï(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€„„„€U.S.€„„„,€115€S.Ct.€909€(1995);€€òòPettyjohn€v.€Stateóó,Ï885€S.W.2d€364€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994);€ÏòòState€v.€Beckhamóó,€No.€02C01„9405„CR„00107€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,ÏSept.€27,€1995);€€òòCaldwell€v.€Stateóó,€€No.€02C01„9405„CR„00107€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€at€Jackson,€Dec.€28,€1994),€òòperm.€to€appeal€granted€in€part,€denied€in€partóó,Ï(Tenn.€May€30,€1995);€€òòState€v.€Voadenóó,€No.€01C01„9305„CC„00151€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Dec.€22,€1994),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€May€1,Ï1995);€€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9312„CR„00393€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏKnoxville,€July€1,€1994).€€Specifically,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€noted€inÏòòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€at€734,€that€"the€use€of€the€phrase€'moral€certainty'Ïby€itself€is€insufficient€to€invalidate€an€instruction€on€the€meaning€of€reasonableÏdoubt."€€The€court€distinguished€the€Tennessee€instruction€from€the€oneÏinvalidated€in€òòCage€v.€Louisianaóó€because€the€Tennessee€instruction€does€notÏrequire€"grave€uncertainty"€to€support€acquittal.€€Moreover,€the€court€concludedÏthat:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ[w]hen€considered€in€conjunction€with€an€instruction€thatÏ"[r]easonable€doubt€is€that€doubt€engendered€by€anÏinvestigation€of€all€the€proof€in€the€case€and€an€inability,Ïafter€such€investigation,€to€let€the€mind€rest€easily€upon€theÏcertainty€of€your€verdict,"€we€find€that€the€instruction€properlyÏreflects€the€evidentiary€certainty€required€by€the€"dueÏprocess"€clause€of€the€federal€constitution€and€the€"law€ofÏthe€land"€provision€in€our€state€constitution.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓòòNicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€at€734.€€We,€therefore,€conclude€that€the€charge€given€byÏthe€trial€court,€although€containing€the€phrase€"moral€certainty,"€did€not€violateÏthe€appellant's€rights€under€the€United€States€or€the€Tennessee€Constitutions.ÌÌÌÓÓò ò15.à8 à€WHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT'S€INSTRUCTIONS€INÏTHE€PENALTY€PHASE€PROHIBITED€THE€JURY€FROMÏCONSIDERING€AND€GIVING€FULL€EFFECT€TO€THEÏAPPELLANT'S€MITIGATING€EVIDENCE.ÌÌÓÓà@ àA.€MODIFIER€"EXTREME"Ìó óà àThe€appellant€first€contends€that€the€jury€instructions€precluded€the€juryÏfrom€considering€mitigating€evidence€of€mental€or€emotional€disturbance€whichÏdid€not€rise€to€the€level€of€extreme€mental€or€emotional€disturbance.€€In€its€juryÏinstructions,€the€trial€court€recited€the€language€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„2„203(j)(2)€in€instructing€the€jury€that€in€arriving€at€the€punishment€the€jury€shallÏconsider€the€mitigating€factors€including,€but€not€limited€to€that€"[t]he€murder€wasÏcommitted€while€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€extreme€mental€orÏemotional€disturbance."€€The€appellant€contends€that€use€of€the€modifierÍ"extreme"€misled€the€jury€in€its€consideration€of€the€evidence.€€ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€rejected€this€same€argument€in€òòState€v.ÏSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€16„17€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€„„U.S.„„,€114€S.€Ct.€561Ï(1993).€€Moreover,€in€the€case€at€bar,€the€jury€was€also€instructed€that€it€couldÏconsider€any€mitigating€factor€raised€by€the€evidence€at€either€the€guilt€orÏpenalty€phase€of€the€trial.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àB.€MODIFIER€"SUBSTANTIALLY"Ìó óà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€jury€instructions€precluded€the€juryÏfrom€considering€mitigating€evidence€of€mental€illness€and€intoxication€whichÏdid€not€rise€to€the€level€of€"substantially"€affecting€the€appellant's€ability€toÏconform€his€conduct€to€the€law.€€Again,€this€argument€was€rejected€in€òòSmithóó,€857ÏS.W.2d€at€16„17,€and€we€find€the€issue€to€be€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àC.€UNANIMOUS€AGREEMENT€ON€MITIGATING€CIRCUMSTANCESÌó óà àLastly,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€unconstitutionally€limitedÏthe€consideration€of€mitigating€evidence€by€requiring€the€jury€to€unanimouslyÏagree€on€a€verdict€of€life€or€death.€€€This€argument€was€rejected€in€òòSmithóó,€857ÏS.W.2d€at€18,€and€we€agree€that€"nothing€in€the€Tennessee€statutes,€and€theÏinstructions€given€the€jury,€or€in€the€verdict€form€submitted€to€the€jury,€was€likelyÏto€lead€any€juror€to€believe€that€he€or€she€was€precluded€from€consideringÍmitigating€circumstances€unless€all€jurors€agreed€that€the€circumstancesÏexisted."€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓÓò ò16.à8 à€WHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT€FAILED€TO€PROVIDEÏTHE€JURY€WITH€PROPOSED€INSTRUCTIONSÏNECESSARY€FOR€THE€PROPER€DETERMINATION€OFÏSENTENCE.ÌÌÓÓó óÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€give€certainÏrequested€jury€instructions€during€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial.€€The€trial€courtÏrejected€the€following€special€instructions:ÌÓÓà à1.(2)à àBurden€of€proof€„generally;Ìà à2.(4)à àLife€means€life€„death€means€death€„sentence€will€be€carried€Ìà àà àoutÌà à3.(5)à àDefinition€of€life€and€death€„€sentencing;Ìà à4.(6)à àJury€has€responsibility€for€final€decision€„€sentencing;Ìà à5.(7)à àDecision€to€be€made€by€individual€jurors€„€sentencing;Ìà à6.(9)à àAggravating€circumstance€„€definition€„€sentencing;ÌÌÌà à7.(10)à àWeighing€aggravation€and€mitigation€„€defining€mitigation€„Ïà àà àà àsentencing;Ìà à8.(13)à àAggravating€circumstance€„€standards€for€consideration€„Ïà àà àà àsentencing;Ìà à9.(14)à àPresumption€regarding€aggravating€circumstances€„€sentencing;Ìà à10.(15)Aggravating€circumstances€„€unanimity€„€sentencing:Ìà à11.(16)Aggravating€circumstance€„€individual€consideration€butÏà àà àà àrequirement€of€unanimity€„€sentencing;Ìà à12.(18)Sentence€„€crime€in€society;Ìà à13.(19)Deterrence€„€cost€sentencing;Ìà à14.(20)Definition€„€weight€and€unanimity€„€sentencing;Ìà à15.(21)Definition€„€mitigating€circumstances€„€sentencing;Ìà à16.(22)Mitigating€circumstance€„€definition€„sentencing;Ìà à17.(23)Mitigating€circumstance€„€definition€„sentencing;Ìà à18.(24)Standard€of€proof€„€sentencing;Ìà à19.(26)Weighing€aggravating€and€mitigating€circumstances€„Ïà àà àà àsentencing;Ìà à20.(27)Doubt€inures€to€the€benefit€of€the€defendant€„€sentencing;Ìà à21.(28)Mercy€„€sentencing;Ìà à22.(29)Consideration€for€sentence€less€than€death€„€sentencing;Ìà à23.(30)Mitigation€„€reason€for€sentence€less€than€death€„€sentencing;Ìà à24.(31)Sympathy€„€sentencing;Ìà à25.(32)Compassion€„€mercy€„€sentencing;Ìà à26.(33)Mitigation€„€reason€for€sentence€less€than€death€„€sentencing;Ìà à27.(34)Mitigating€circumstances€„€basis€for€sentence€less€than€death€„Ïà àà àsentencing;Ìà à28.(35)Imposing€a€sentence€less€than€death;Ìà à29.(36)May€vote€life€„€sentencing;Ìà à30.(37)Finding€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€death€is€appropriate€„€Ìà àà àsentencing;Ìà à31.(38)Lingering€doubt€„sentencing;Ìà à32.(39)Jury€verdict€„€inability€to€agree€„€sentencing;Ìà à33.(40)No€evidence€except€that€introduced€at€trial€„€sentencing;Ìà à34.(42)Mitigating€circumstance€„€age€„€sentencing;Ìà à35.(44)Mitigating€circumstance€„€mental€illness€„€sentencing;Ìà à36.(46)Mitigating€circumstance€„€capacity€to€appreciate€criminality€„Ïà àà àsentencing;Ìà à37.(47)Mitigating€circumstance€„€emotional€development€„€sentencing;Ìà à38.(50)Mitigating€circumstance€„€adolescent€„€sentencing;Ìà à39.(51)Mitigating€circumstance€„€parental€expectations€„€sentencing;Ìà à40.(53)Mitigating€circumstance€„€health€of€another€„€sentencing;Ìà à41.(54)Mitigating€circumstance€„€domination€„€sentencing;Ìà à42.(55)Mitigating€circumstance€„€planning€of€crime€„€sentencing;Ìà à43.(56)Mitigating€circumstance€„€death€of€victim€„€sentencing;Ìà à44.(57)Mitigating€circumstance€„€lingering€doubt€„€sentencing.ÌÌà àÌÓÓà àWhen€a€trial€court's€instructions€correctly€charge€the€applicable€law,€theÏcourt€does€not€err€by€refusing€special€requests.€€òòTillet€v.€Stateóó,€565€S.W.2d€509,Ï511(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€Nor€is€it€error€to€refuse€to€give€an€inaccurateÏspecial€request.€€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€751€S.W.2d€464,€467€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.Íòòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1988).€€After€reviewing€the€instructions€given€by€theÏtrial€court,€we€conclude€that€the€instructions€adequately€charge€the€applicableÏlaw.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÓÓò ò17.à8 à€WHETHER€THE€DEATH€PENALTYÏUNCONSTITUTIONALLY€INFRINGES€UPON€THEÏAPPELLANT'S€FUNDAMENTAL€RIGHT€TO€LIFE.ÌÌÌÌÓÓó óà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€Tennessee€death€penalty€statute€isÏunconstitutional€in€that€the€right€to€life€is€fundamental€and€the€punishment€ofÏdeath€is€not€necessary€to€promote€any€compelling€state€interest.€€The€appellantÏargues€that€less€severe€penalties€are€available€to€serve€the€state's€interest€inÏpunishing€the€appellant.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€asserts€that€"compelling€stateÏinterests€are€those€which€secure€our€democratic€institutions€and/or€insureÏnational€security."€€While€this€argument€is€somewhat€novel€in€its€approach,€weÏnote€that€one€of€the€state's€most€basic€functions€is€to€enforce€the€penal€laws€asÏestablished€by€the€legislature.€€We€quote€from€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏdecision,€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€428€U.S.€153,€183,€96€S.Ct.€2909,€2930€(1976):ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ[C]apital€punishment€is€an€expression€of€society's€moralÏoutrage€at€particularly€offensive€conduct.€€This€function€mayÏbe€unappealing€to€many,€but€it€is€essential€in€an€orderedÏsociety€that€asks€its€citizens€to€rely€on€legal€processesÏrather€than€self„help€to€vindicate€their€wrongs.ÌÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€the€state's€death€penaltyÏstatute,€òòper€seóó,€meets€due€process€requirements.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.Ï2d€166,€190€(Tenn.€1991);€€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Grosecloseóó,€615€S.W.2d€142Ï(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€454€U.S.€882,€102€S.Ct.€366€(1981).€€This€issue€isÏtherefore€without€merit.ò òÌÌó óÌÓÓò ò18.à8 à€WHETHER€THE€STATE'S€DEATH€PENALTY€STATUTEÏIS€CONSTITUTIONAL.ÌÌÓÓÌà àó óThe€appellant€raises€several€constitutional€objections€to€the€TennesseeÏdeath€penalty€statute.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€deathÏpenalty€statute€is€unconstitutional€in€that:ÌÓÓ(a)€it€provides€insufficient€guidance€to€the€jury€concerning€who€has€the€burdenÏof€proving€whether€mitigation€outweighs€aggravation€and€what€standard€the€juryÏshould€use€in€making€that€determination;€ÌÌ(b)€it€fails€to€sufficiently€narrow€the€class€of€death€penalty€eligible€defendants;ÌÌ(c)€it€insufficiently€limits€the€jury's€discretion€in€that€once€it€finds€an€aggravatingÏcircumstance€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€it€can€impose€death,€regardless€ofÏwhat€mitigation€is€shown;ÌÌ(d)€it€requires€that€if€the€jury€finds€that€the€aggravating€circumstances€outweighÏthe€mitigating€circumstances,€it€must€impose€death;ÌÌ(e)€it€allows€the€jury€to€afford€too€little€weight€to€non„statutory€mitigating€factors.€ÏThe€statute€requires€that€the€jury€consider€"any€mitigating€circumstances";ÌÌ(f)€it€does€not€require€the€jury€to€make€the€ultimate€determination€that€death€isÏappropriate€in€that€it€is€"merely€filling€in€the€blanks"€in€determining€andÏcomparing€mitigating€and€aggravating€circumstances.;ÌÌ(g)€it€does€not€inform€the€jury€of€its€ability€to€impose€mercy;ÌÌ(h)€it€provides€no€requirement€that€the€jury€make€findings€of€fact€as€to€theÏpresence€or€absence€of€mitigating€circumstances,€thereby€preventing€effectiveÏappellate€review;€€ÌÌ(i)€it€prohibits€the€jury€from€being€informed€of€the€consequences€of€its€failure€toÏreach€a€unanimous€verdict€in€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial;ÌÌ(j)€it€allows€the€imposition€of€a€cruel€and€unusual€punishment€and€in€that€itÏallows€death€to€be€imposed€by€electrocution;ÌÌ(k)€it€has€been€imposed€discriminately€on€the€basis€of€race,€sex,€geographicÏregion,€and€economic€and€political€status€of€the€defendant;ÌÌ(l)€the€proportionality€of€arbitrariness€review€conducted€by€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„13„205€is€inadequate€andÏdeficient;ÌÌ(m)€it€permits€the€introduction€of€relatively€unreliable€evidence€in€the€State'sÏproof€of€aggravating€circumstances€and€in€its€rebuttal€of€mitigatingÏcircumstances;ÌÌ(n)€it€allows€the€State€to€make€final€closing€arguments€to€the€jury€in€the€penaltyÏphase€of€the€trial;ÌÌÌÓÓÌà àAll€of€the€appellant's€arguments€except€(g)€have€been€rejected€by€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€268„269Ï(Tenn.€1994);.òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€16„17,€23€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.ÏHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€258€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,Í185,€187€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589,€596€(Tenn.€1990);€òòStateÏv.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€366,€368€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.€€Grosecloseóó,€615ÏS.W.2d€142,€150€€(Tenn.€1981).€€With€respect€to€the€argument€in€(g),€inÏconsideration€of€the€jury€instructions€given€in€a€capital€case,€we€find€this€issue€toÏbe€without€merit.ÌÌÓÓò ò19.à8 àWHETHER€THE€CUMULATIVE€EFFECT€OF€ALL€ERRORSÏVIOLATE€THE€APPELLANT'S€CONSTITUTIONALÏRIGHTS.ó ó€€€ÌÌÓÓÌò òà àó óAs€his€final€argument,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€cumulative€effect€ofÏall€errors€alleged€both€at€trial€and€at€sentencing€violates€his€constitutional€rights.€ÏAs€this€court€has€not€found€any€error€with€respect€to€the€appellant's€previousÏeighteen€issues,€we€find€this€final€issue€to€be€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.€€òòCONCLUSIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€has€offered€no€grounds€that€warrant€relief€from€hisÏconvictions€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder€and€first€degree€burglary.€ÏMoreover,€we€conclude€that€the€appellant€has€failed€to€establish€any€ground€Ìwarranting€relief€from€his€sentence€of€death.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed.ÌÌà àMoreover,€in€accordance€with€the€mandates€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)€(1994€Supp.)€and€after€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€and€the€trialÏcourt's€Rule€12€form,€we€conclude€that:€(1)€the€sentence€of€death€was€notÏimposed€in€any€arbitrary€fashion,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„206(c)(1)(A);€(2)€theÏevidence€supports€the€jury's€finding€of€two€statutory€aggravating€circumstances,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(B);€and€(3)€the€evidence€supports€the€jury'sÏfinding€that€the€aggravating€circumstances€outweigh€any€mitigatingÏcircumstances,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(C).€€ÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€proof€establishes€that€the€appellant€went€to€theÏhome€of€the€victim€to€"get€money."€€The€victim,€a€seventy„nine€year€old€widow,Ïliving€alone,€was€the€best€friend€of€the€appellant's€grandmother.€€Apparently,€theÏappellant€used€this€relationship€to€gain€access€to€her€home.€€Once€inside,€theÏappellant€savagely€beat€the€victim€with€a€stick,€stabbed€her€forty„three€times,Ïand€"practiced€karate€on€her."€€Medical€evidence€further€establishes€that€theÏvictim€was€alive€through€most,€if€not€all,€of€the€stabbings.€€The€appellantÏconfessed€the€crime€to€his€wife.€€A€comparative€proportionality€review,Ïconsidering€both€the€circumstances€of€the€crime€and€the€nature€of€the€appellant,Ïconvinces€us€that€the€sentence€of€death€is€neither€excessive€norÏdisproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„206(c)(1)(D).€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€sentence€of€death.ÌÌÌÇÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDavid€G.€Hayes,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌ