WPCm #  % 0a( w@#4cwU: 0] 0csU:U: 0JJ 0T 0^ 0hN 0r 0|( 0 0* 1u 0d/B)DC AM BLi*U  !}"+#$s& (*+,+/0145678B9G:]< e=r>g?\@jA^BpCjDyEjFPG@H /I$ !  XXXXX   `   0  ("#$XXXX  0  ,rAZ"Arial Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1ddu"C << G d  !  #d#]  "  ]   YYY FILED]X May2,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.]AppellateCourtClerk  !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.CodeAnn.3913202(a)(2)(1991). !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(i)(5)(1991). !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(i)(5)(1991).  !#d#]   $   X ]         BothMr.andMrs.Jacksonwereemployed.Theautopsyrevealedthevictimshadnotingestedanyformofillicitdrug.Sincenolargesumofmoneyorillicitnarcoticswerefoundintheapartment,itisapparenttheywerenotengagedindrugtrafficking.  !#d#]   $   X ]         867S.W.2d1(Tenn.Crim.App.1992),per.app.denied(Tenn.1993).  !#d#]   $   X ]         SeeCommonwealthv.Bacon,374Mass.358,372N.E.2d780(1978). !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.CodeAnn.3913202(a)(2)(1991). !#d#]   $   X ]         1995Tenn.Pub.Acts,ch.460,1. !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.CodeAnn.3913202(a)(2)(Supp.1996). !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.Const.art.I,14. !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.Const.art.1,9.  !#d#]   $   X ]         Churchv.State,206Tenn.336,358,333S.W.2d799,809(1960). ! !#d#]   $   X ]         Jordanv.State,156Tenn.509,514,3S.W.2d159,160(1928)(citationsomitted).  !#d#]   $   X ]         Statev.Overton,193Tenn.171,174,245S.W.2d188,189(1951);Stanfieldv.State,181Tenn.428,432,181S.W.2d617,618(1944);Jordan,156Tenn.at514,3S.W.2dat160;Statev.Tate,912S.W.2d785,789(Tenn.Crim.App.1995). i !#d#]   $   X ]         Cokev.State,208Tenn.248,25051,345S.W.2d673,674(1961);Starksv.State,66Tenn.64,66(1872);seeTate,912S.W.2dat789.  !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.R.Crim.P.12(f).SeeStatev.Davis,613S.W.2d218,221(Tenn.1981);Statev.Joyner,759S.W.2d422,425(Tenn.Crim.App.1987);per.app.denied(Tenn.1988);Statev.Rhoden,739S.W.2d6,10(Tenn.Crim.App.),per.app.denied(Tenn.1987);Statev.Farmer,675S.W.2d212,214(Tenn.Crim.App.1984);Statev.Bowers,673S.W.2d887,888(Tenn.Crim.App.),per.app.denied(Tenn.1984). !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.R.Crim.P.12(b)(2). !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.R.Crim.P.12(b)(2).  !#d#]   $   X ]         SeeCapriAdultCinemav.State,537S.W.2d896,899(Tenn.1976);Rayv.State,224Tenn.164,451S.W.2d854(1970);Statev.McKissack,917S.W.2d714(Tenn.Crim.App.1995);Roev.State,584S.W.2d257,259(Tenn.Crim.App.),cert.denied(Tenn.1979);Ingramv.Henderson,2Tenn.Crim.App.372,379,454S.W.2d167,170,cert.denied(1970);McFerrenv.State,1Tenn.Crim.App.688,449S.W.2d724(1969),cert.denied(Tenn.1970). ! !#d#]   $   X ]         Porter,495S.W.2d570(Tenn.Crim.App.),cert.denied(Tenn.1973). !#d#]   $   X ]         Porter,supra.  !#d#]   $   X ]         Intheheadingtothisissueinhisbrief,thedefendantclaimsthattheespeciallyheinous,atrocious,orcruelaggravatingcircumstanceisunconstitutionallyvague.Thedefendantfails,however,toaddressthisclaiminthebodyofhisbriefandcitestonoauthorityinsupportofhisargument.Nonetheless,thesupremecourthasrecentlyaddressedasimilarclaimandupheldthevalidityofthisaggravatorunderconstitutionalattacks.SeeStatev.Odom,928S.W.2d18(Tenn.1996).Accordingly,thisfeebleclaimmustfail. !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(i)(5)(1991). !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(i)(5)(1991). !#d#]   $   X ]         690S.W.2d517(Tenn.1985). !#d#]   $   X ]         443U..S.307,99S.Ct.2781,61L.Ed.2d560(1979). !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.R.App.P.13(e). 8 !#d#]   $   X ]         Statev.Dykes,803S.W.2d250,253(Tenn.Crim.App.),per.app.denied(Tenn.1990). = !#d#]   $   X ]         Statev.Matthews,805S.W.2d776,779(Tenn.Crim.App.),per.app.denied(Tenn.1990). S !#d#]   $   X ]         Liakasv.State,199Tenn.298,305,286S.W.2d856,859,cert.denied,352U.S.845,77S.Ct.39,1L.Ed.2d49(1956).  !#d#]   $   X ]         Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.1978). !#d#]   $   X ]         Cabbage,571S.W.2dat835. !#d#]   $   X ]         493S.W.2d474,476(Tenn.1973).  !#d#]   $   X ]         Statev.Tuggle,639S.W.2d913,914(Tenn.1982). !#d#]   $   X ]         Tuggle,639S.W.2dat914.  !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.CodeAnn.392203(i)(5)(repealed)(emphasisadded). !#d#]   $   X ]         1989Tenn.Pub.Acts,ch.591,1.  !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(i)(5)(1991)(emphasisadded). !#d#]   $   X ]         690S.W.2d517(Tenn.1985). !#d#]   $   X ]         690S.W.2dat529. !#d#]   $   X ]         718S.W.2d241(Tenn.1986). !#d#]   $   X ]         928S.W.2d18(Tenn.1996).  !#d#]   $   X ]         928S.W.2dat2627.TheauthorofthisopiniondoesnotagreewiththeholdingofthesupremecourtinOdom.However,thisCourtmustreligiouslyfollowOdomasthisCourtisrequiredtofolloweachdecisiondecidedbythesupremecourt.Bargerv.Brock,535S.W.2d337,34041(Tenn.1976);Statev.Davis,654S.W.2d688,690(Tenn.Crim.App.1983).InBarger,thesupremecourtsaid:    [T]heSupremeCourtisadirectcreatureoftheConstitutionandconstitutesthesupremejudicialtribunalofthestateandisacourtoflastresort.AllothercourtsareconstitutionallyinferiortribunalssubjecttotheactionsoftheSupremeCourt.Itsadjudicationsarefinalandconclusiveuponallquestionsdeterminedbyit,subjectonlytoreview,inappropriatecasesbytheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates.Railroadv.Byrne,119Tenn.278,104S.W.460(1907).  ****  Itisacontrollingprinciplethatinferiorcourtsmustabidetheorders,decreesandprecedentsofhighercourts.Theslightestdeviationfromthisrigidrulewoulddisruptanddestroythesanctityofthejudicialprocess.Therewouldbenofinalityorstabilityinthelawandthecourtsystemwouldbechaoticinitsoperationandunstableandinconsistentinitsdecisions.Personalandpropertyrightswouldbeinsecureandlitigationwouldknownoend.   X 535S.W.2dat34041.Inotherwords,neitheratrialcourtnorthisCourthastheauthoritytomodify,revise,modernizeoroverrulearulecreatedbytheSupremeCourt.Barger,supra;Bloodworthv.Stuart,221Tenn.567,572,428S.W.2d786,789(1968);seeRichardsonv.Johnson,60Tenn.App.129,136,444S.W.2d708,711,cert.denied(Tenn.1969). !#d#]   $   X ]         928S.W.2dat35.  !#d#]   $   X ]         Statev.HenryEugeneHodges,DavidsonCountyNo.01C019212CR00382(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,May18,1995),mandatoryappealpendinginTennesseeSupremeCourt;seeStatev.RonnieMichaelCauthern,GibsonCountyNo.02C019506CC00164(Tenn.Crim.App.,Jackson,December2,1996). 9 !#d#]   $   X ]         877S.W.2d722,731(Tenn.1994),cert.denied,___U.S.___,115S.Ct.909,130L.Ed.2d791(1995).  !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(c);Statev.Teague,897S.W.2d248(Tenn.1995). !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(c).  !#d#]   $   X ]         Statev.Adkins,725S.W.2d660,663(Tenn.),cert.denied,482U.S.909,107S.Ct.2491,96L.Ed.2d383(1987)(quotingStatev.Teague,680S.W.2d785,788(Tenn.1984),cert.denied,473U.S.911,105S.Ct.3538,87L.Ed.2d622(1985));seealsoNichols,877S.W.2dat731;Statev.Miller,771S.W.2d401,403(Tenn.1989),cert.denied,497U.S.1031,110S.Ct.3292,111L.Ed.2d801(1990). E !#d#]   $   X ]         Thisphraseshouldnotbeconfusedwiththephrase backgroundhistoryasusedinTenn.CodeAnn.3913204(c). !#d#]   $   X ]         Teague,680S.W.2dat78788. !#d#]   $   X ]         680S.W.2d785. !#d#]   $   X ]         680S.W.2dat78788. !#d#]   $   X ]         877S.W.2d722. !#d#]   $   X ]         877S.W.2dat726.%2A`ArialTT !#d#]   $   X ]         877S.W.2dat731. !#d#]   $   X ]         877S.W.2dat731. !#d#]   $   X ]         885S.W.2dat797. !#d#]   $   X ]         885S.W.2dat813(citationsomitted). !#d#]   $   X ]         897S.W.2d248(Tenn.1995). !#d#]   $   X ]         897S.W.2dat256. !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.R.Evid.401. !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.R.Evid.402. !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.R.Evid.403. " !#d#]   $   X ]         781S.W.2d277,287(Tenn.Crim.App.),per.app.denied(Tenn.1989). U !#d#]   $   X ]         781S.W.2dat287;seeStatev.Gentry,881S.W.2d1,6(Tenn.Crim.App.1993),per.app.denied(Tenn.1994).  !#d#]   $   X ]         Statev.Williamson,919S.W.2d69,78(Tenn.Crim.App.1995). [ !#d#]   $   X ]         Williamson,919S.W.2dat78;Statev.Hill,885S.W.2d357,361(Tenn.Crim.App.),per.app.denied(Tenn.1994).  !#d#]   $   X ]         Williamson,919S.W.2dat78;Dulsworth,781S.W.2dat287. ] !#d#]   $   X ]         Williamson,919S.W.2dat79;Statev.Hayes,899S.W.2d175,183(Tenn.Crim.App.),per.app.denied(Tenn.1995).  !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.R.Evid.403;Statev.Banks,564S.W.2d947,951(Tenn.1978);seealso,Statev.Bigbee,885S.W.2d797,807(Tenn.1994);Statev.VanTran,864S.W.2d465,477(Tenn.1993),cert.denied511U.S.1040,114S.Ct.1577,128L.Ed.2d220(1994).  !#d#]   $   X ]         SeeCapriAdultCinemav.State,537S.W.2d896,899(Tenn.1976);Rayv.State,224Tenn.164,451S.W.2d854(1970);Statev.McKissack,917S.W.2d714(Tenn.Crim.App.1995);Roev.State,584S.W.2d257,259(Tenn.Crim.App.),cert.denied(Tenn.1979);Ingramv.Henderson,2Tenn.Crim.App.372,379,454S.W.2d167,170,cert.denied(Tenn.1970);McFerrenv.State,1Tenn.Crim.App.688,449S.W.2d724(1969),cert.denied(Tenn.1970). * !#d#]   $   X ]         Porterv.State,495S.W.2d570(Tenn.Crim.App.),cert.denied(Tenn.1973).  !#d#]   $   X ]         ` XX857S.W.2d1,1011(Tenn.1993),cert.denied,510U.S.996,114S.Ct.561,126L.Ed.2d461(1993),andcert.denied,510U.S.1040,114S.Ct.682,126L.Ed.2d650(1994). Z !#d#]   $   X ]         Statev.MichaelDeanBush,CumberlandCountyNo.03C019403CR00094,slipop.at30,(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,February12,1996). !#d#]   $   X ]         1993Tenn.Pub.Acts,ch.473,16.uC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  !#d#]   $   X ]         Statev.ChristopherS.Beckham,ShelbyCountyNo.02C019406CR00107(Tenn.Crim.App.,Jackson,Sept.27,1995),per.app.granted(Tenn.July8,1996)(supremecourtremandedthecasetothetrialcourtforanewsentencinghearingpursuanttoStatev.Harris,919S.W.2d323(Tenn.1996)). !#d#]   $   X ]         472U.S.320,105S.Ct.2633,86L.Ed.2d231(1985). 6 !#d#]   $   X ]         Statev.Renner,912S.W.2d701,705(Tenn.1995);Hunterv.State,222Tenn.672,702,440S.W.2d1,15(1969),judgmentvacatedonothergrounds,403U.S.711,91S.Ct.2285,29L.Ed.2d820(1971),cert.denied,403U.S.955,91S.Ct.2286,29L.Ed.2d865(1971);Statev.Gregory,862S.W.2d574,578(Tenn.Crim.App.1992). 5 !#d#]   $   X ]         SeeStatev.Bigbee,885S.W.2d797,805(Tenn.1994);Statev.Duncan,698S.W.2d63,6768(Tenn.1985),cert.denied,475U.S.1031,106S.Ct.1240,89L.Ed.2d348(1986);Statev.Strouth,620S.W.2d467,471(Tenn.1981),cert.denied,455U.S.983,102S.Ct.1491,71L.Ed.2d692(1982);seealsoStatev.Nichols,877S.W.2d722(Tenn.1994),cert.denied___U.S.___,115S.Ct.909,130L.Ed.2d791(1995)(supremecourtaddressedmeritsofthisveryissueeventhoughappellantfailedtocontemporaneouslyobjecttothestatements).  !#d#]   $   X ]         Caldwell,472U.S.at32526,105S.Ct.at263738,86L.Ed.2dat237.  !#d#]   $   X ]         Caldwell,472U.S.at32829,105S.Ct.at2639,86L.Ed.2dat239. !#d#]   $   X ]         __U.S.__,114S.Ct.2004,129L.Ed.2d1(1994).  !#d#]   $   X ]         ___U.S.at___,114S.Ct.at2010,129L.Ed.2dat11.  !#d#]   $   X ]         SeeStatev.West,844S.W.2d144,151(Tenn.1992);Statev.Hines,758S.W.2d515,519(Tenn.1988);Statev.Coker,746S.W.2d167,173(Tenn.1987),cert.denied,488U.S.871,109S.Ct.180,102L.Ed.2d149(1988). !#d#]   $   X ]         876S.W.2d75(Tenn.1994). !#d#]   $   X ]         876S.W.2dat82.(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  ' dxdP Pd$$$$'dxd  !#d#]   $   X ]         SeeWalker,910S.W.2d381,386(Tenn.1995),cert.denied,___U.S.___,117S.Ct.88,136L.Ed.2d45(1996);Statev.Bigbee,885S.W.2d797,804(Tenn.1993);Statev.Bane,853S.W.2d483,488(Tenn.1993),cert.denied,510U.S.1040,114S.Ct.682,126L.Ed.2d650(1994);Statev.Caldwell,671S.W.2d459,465(Tenn.1984),cert.denied,469U.S.873,105S.Ct.231,83L.Ed.2d160(1984). !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.R.App.P.13(b);Tenn.R.Crim.P.52(b). Z !#d#]   $   X ]         SeeStatev.Laney,654S.W.2d383,389(Tenn.1983),cert.denied,464U.S.1003,104S.Ct.510,78L.Ed.2d699(1983). !#d#]   $   X ]         Tenn.R.App.P.36(b).  !#d#]   $   X ]         SeeStatev.Smith,893S.W.2d908,924(Tenn.1994),cert.denied,___U.S.___,116S.Ct.99,133L.Ed.2d53(1995);Statev.Brimmer,876S.W.2d75,86(Tenn.1994),cert.denied,___U.S.___,115S.Ct.585,130L.Ed.2d499(1994);Statev.Cazes,875S.W.2d253,26870(Tenn.1994),cert.denied,___U.S.___,115S.Ct.743,130L.Ed.2d644(1995);Statev.Smith,857S.W.2d1,23(Tenn.1993),cert.denied,___U.S.___,114S.Ct.561,126L.Ed.2d461(1993);Statev.Black,815S.W.2d166,185(Tenn.1991);Statev.Boyd,797S.W.2d589,599(Tenn.1990),cert.denied,498U.S.1074,111S.Ct.800,112L.Ed.2d861(1991);Statev.Teel,793S.W.2d236,251(Tenn.1990),cert.denied498U.S.1007,111S.Ct.571,112L.Ed.2d577(1990);Statev.Thompson,768S.W.2d239,252(Tenn.1989),cert.denied,497U.S.1031,110S.Ct.3288,111L.Ed.2d796(1990).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ,cAZ"Arial Regular ! . ]  ݛ      X 7 t XXdd7  \RA'\  ќuR#%"A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHETENNESSEECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS@ ATJACKSON@ SEPTEMBER1996SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE,   )      )No.02C019601CR00002   Appellee,  )      )ShelbyCountyv.      )      )JonKerryBlackwood,Judge      )SittingbyDesignationPRESTONCARTER,   )      )(DeathPenalty)   Appellant.  )FORTHEAPPELLANT:    FORTHEAPPELLEE:GlennI.Wright     CharlesW.BursonSuite800      AttorneyGeneralandReporter200JeffersonAvenue    500CharlotteAvenueMemphis,TN38103    Nashville,TN372430497       HowardL.Wagerman    AmyL.Tarkington200JeffersonAvenue,Suite1313  AssistantAttorneyGeneralMemphis,TN38103    450JamesRobertsonPkwy.       Nashville,TN372430493       JohnW.Pierotti       DistrictAttorneyGeneral       201PoplarAvenue,Suite301       Memphis,TN38103              PhillipGeraldHarris       AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral       201PoplarAvenue,Suite301       Memphis,TN38103       ReginaldR.Henderson       AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral       201PoplarAvenue,Suite301       Memphis,TN38103     OPINIONFILED:__________________________________AFFIRMEDJoeB.Jones,PresidingJudge   ] OPINION]  ]X  Theappellant,PrestonCarter,(defendant),wasconvictedoftwocountsofmurderinthefirstdegree &   ׀followinghispleasofguiltytothesetwooffenses.Ajuryofhispeerssethispunishmentatdeathbyelectrocutionforbothoffenses.Thejuryfoundoneaggravatingcircumstance,namely,themurderswereespeciallyheinous,atrocious,orcruelinthattheyinvolvedtortureorseriousphysicalabusebeyondthatnecessarytoproducedeath. '   ׀ Thedefendantpresentseight(8)issuesforreview.Hecontends(1)thejurysverdictwasnotauthorizedbylawandisfaciallyvoid,(2)theindictmentomittedanessentialelementoffelonymurder,(3)aggravatingcircumstance(i)(5) (   ׀isunconstitutionallyvagueandwasunconstitutionallyappliedtothefactsofthiscase,(4)thetrialcourterredbypermittingthestatetointroduceirrelevant,inflammatoryevidence,(5)thetrialcourterredbydenyinghismotiontosuppresshisconfession,(6)thetrialcourterredinrefusingtopermitthejurytoconsiderlifewithoutthepossibilityofparoleasanalternativepunishmentforfirstdegreemurder,(7)thetrialcourterredbypermittingthestatetoengageinimproperargumentduringfinalsummation,and(8)thedeathpenaltystatutesareunconstitutional. Afterathoroughreviewoftherecord,thebriefssubmittedbytheparties,andthelawgoverningtheissuespresentedforreview,itistheopinionofthisCourttheconvictionsandthedeathsentencesshouldbeaffirmed. OnThursdayevening,May27,1993,thedefendant,LewisAnderson,andCurlyIvery,werepresentwhenTony,arelativeofAndersons,relatedhewaspurchasingillicitnarcoticsatanapartmentlocatedinalargeapartmentcomplex.Tonyopineditwouldbe realeasyforustogointhereandstickupforthedopeandthemoney.Whenthedefendantandhiscodefendants,AndersonandIvery,expressedinterestintherobberyscheme,Tonytookthethreementotheapartmentcomplex,usedtheaccesscodetoopenthegates,gainedentryinthecomplex,andshowedthethreementheapartmentwheretheillicitdrugswerebeingsold.TheapartmentindicatedwastheapartmentofThomasandTensiaJackson. )   ׀Tonytoldthecodefendantsalltheyhadtodowasknockonthedoor andthisgirlwouldopenthedoortojustanyonewhosaidtheywantedtobuysome[illicitdrugs]. OnFridaymorning,May28,1993,atapproximately12:30a.m.,thedefendant,Anderson,andIverywenttotheapartmentindicatedbyTonywiththeintenttorobthevictimsoftheirmoneyandillicitnarcotics.Theywereinastolenautomobile.ThedefendantandAndersonwenttothedooroftheapartment.Ivery,apparentlyhavingsecondthoughtsaboutparticipatingintherobbery,remainedinthevehicle.Andersonknockedonthedooroftheapartment.WhenMr.Jacksonappearedatthedoor,Andersontoldhimhe wantedtogetsomething,meaningillicitdrugs.Mr.JacksontoldAnderson: Idonthaveanything,what[are]youtalkingabout?WhenMr.Jacksonrefusedtoopenthedoor,thedefendantrealizedtheyhadgonetothewrongapartment.Nevertheless,thedefendantandAndersonkickedthedooropenandenteredtheapartment.ThedefendantaskedMr.Jacksonwherehekeptthemoneyandillicitdrugs.Mr.Jacksonappearedtobeconfused.Hedidnotknowwhatthedefendantwasrequesting.Mr.Jacksonwasmadetogetintoaclosetlocatedinachildsbedroom. Thedefendantransackedtheapartment.Themattresswaspulledfromthebedinthemasterbedroom.Drawershadbeenpulledfromchestsofdrawersandvanities.Thecontentsofthedrawershadbeendumpedonthefloor.Apparently,thedefendantandAndersondidnotfindanymoneyorillicitdrugs.Thisgavecredencetothedefendantssuspiciontheywereatthewrongapartment. ThedefendantwenttotheclosetwhereMr.Jacksonhadbeenplaced.HeshotMr.JacksonwithashotgunjustabovehisrighteyeasJacksonwassquattingorsittinginsidethecloset.ThepathologisttestifiedthecauseofdeathwasthegunshotwoundtoMr.Jacksonshead.Thebarreloftheshotgunwas nearMr.Jacksonsheadwhenthedefendantshothim.Waddingfromtheshotgunshellwasdrivenintothewound.ThenumerouspelletsfromtheshotgunblaststruckMr.Jacksonsbrain;and,accordingtothepathologist,hisbrainexploded.Mr.Jacksonsdeathwasinstantaneous.TheJacksonsthreeyearoldchildwassubsequentlyfoundlyingonapillownexttoMr.Jackson.Hernightgownwassplatteredwithblood. ThedefendantalsoshotMrs.Jacksoninthebathroomoffthemasterbedroom.TheblastenteredMrs.Jacksonsheadinandaroundherlefteye.ThepathologisttestifiedthecauseofdeathwasthegunshotwoundtoMrs.Jacksonshead.Again,thebarreloftheshotgunwas nearMrs.Jacksonsheadwhenthedefendantshother.LikeMr.Jackson,thenumerouspelletsfromtheshotgunblaststruckherbrain;and,accordingtothepathologist,herbrainexploded.Mrs.Jacksonsdeathwasalsoinstantaneous. Mr.Jacksonandhisbrother,KennethJackson,workedforthesamecompany.KennethJacksonarrivedattheJacksonsapartmentatapproximately3:45a.m.totakeMr.Jacksontowork.KennethJacksonnoticedthekitchendoorwasopenandthelightswereoninsidethekitchen.WhenMr.JacksondidnotexittheapartmentafterKennethJacksonhonkedhiscarhorn,KennethJacksonfeltsomethingwasamiss.JacksonandGernisJamesenteredtheapartment.WhentheysawtheconditionoftheapartmentandwereunabletofindeitherMr.orMrs.Jackson,KennethJacksoncalledMrs.Jacksonsbrother,DerrickLot,andtheMemphisPoliceDepartment. LotandKennethJacksonreenteredtheapartment.TheyfoundMr.Jacksonintheclosetofthechildsbedroom.Hewasdead.TheyalsofoundtheJacksonsthreeyearoldchildintheclosetwithherfather.Inthemasterbedroom,amattressblockedaccesstotheadjoiningbathroom.Theydidnotmovethemattress.ThepolicefoundMrs.Jacksonsbodyinthebathroom.Mr.Jacksonswalletandthechildspursewerefoundoutsidethefrontdooroftheapartment. ThedefendantwasarrestedontheeveningofMay28,1993.Hegaveastatementtothepoliceadmittingwhatoccurred.HeidentifiedhimselfasthepersonwhokilledMr.andMrs.Jackson.TheshotgunusedtokillMr.andMrs.Jacksonwasfoundinthedefendantsapartment.Headmittedusingthisweapontokillthetwovictims. Thedefendantintroducedevidenceinmitigation.Hewas24yearsofagewhenhetestifiedatthesentencinghearing.Hehasaneighthgradeeducation.Hescoreda75onapsychologicaltestindicatinga borderlineintellectualfunctioninglevel.Theotherdefensewitnessesestablishedthedefendantwastheproductofabrokenhome,andhewasnotaviolentperson.Heenjoyedspendingtimewithhischildren,andhetreatedthechildrenwell.Theyadmittedthedefendantabusedalcohol,andhedidnotmaintainsteadyemployment.Thedefendantadmittedhebeganusingalcoholandmarijuanawhenhewassixteenyearsofage. Duringthesentencinghearing,thedefendanttestifiedhewasscaredduringtheburglary;andhewasnotin hisrightstateofmindwhenhemurderedMr.andMrs.Jackson.Heexpressedremorse.Hestatedheunderstoodtheenormousamountofpainhecausedboththevictimsfamilyandhisownfamily.Thedefendantproclaimedheneverintendedtoshootanyone.   I.SUFFICIENCYOFINDICTMENTS    Thedefendantcontendsthecountsoftheindictmentofwhichhestandsconvictedaredefectivebecausethesecountsdonotallegethekillingswere reckless.HereliesuponthisCourtsdecisioninStatev.Perkinson. *   ׀TheStateofTennesseecontendsthedefendantwaivedthisissuewhenheenteredpleasofguiltytothesecounts.ThestatearguesPerkinsonandotherTennesseecasesaredistinguishableuponthefacts.Moreover,thestateasksthisCourttoadoptaruleofconstructionformulatedbytheSupremeCourtofMassachusetts. +    TheShelbyCountyGrandJurysittingatMemphisreturnedtwoindictmentschargingthedefendantandtwocodefendantswiththekillingsofThomasJacksonandTensiaJackson.Thedefendantenteredpleasofguiltytofirstdegreemurdercommittedduringtheperpetrationofafelony.Thesecondcountoftheindictmentincasenumber9309760alleges:   X    THEGRANDJURORSoftheStateofTennessee,dulyselected,empaneled,swornandchargedtoinquireforthebodyofthecountyofShelby,Tennessee,upontheiroath,presentthat:  PRESTONCARTERandLEWISANDERSONandCURLYD.IVERY  duringtheperiodoftimebetweenMay27,1993andMay29,1993,inShelbyCounty,Tennessee,andbeforethefindingofthisindictment,didunlawfullykillTHOMASJACKSONduringtheperpetrationofAggravatedBurglary,inviolationofT.C.A.3913202,againstthepeaceanddignityoftheStateofTennessee.    Thesecondcountoftheindictmentnumberincase9309761alleges:    THEGRANDJURORSoftheStateofTennessee,dulyselected,empaneled,swornandchargedtoinquireforthebodyofthecountyofShelby,Tennessee,upontheiroath,presentthat:  PRESTONCARTERandLEWISANDERSONandCURLYD.IVERY  duringtheperiodoftimebetweenMay27,1993andMay29,1993,inShelbyCounty,Tennessee,andbeforethefindingofthisindictment,didunlawfullykillTENSIAJACKSONduringtheperpetrationofAggravatedBurglary,inviolationofT.C.A.3913202,againstthepeaceanddignityoftheStateofTennessee.      X  WhenthedefendantkilledtheJacksons,thestatutedefinedfirstdegreefelonymurder,(felonymurder),asthe recklesskillingofanothercommittedintheperpetrationof,orattempttoperpetrateanyfirstdegreemurder,arson,rape,robbery,burglary,theft,kidnappingoraircraftpiracy. ,   ׀TheTennesseeGeneralAssemblyamendedthissubsectionin1995. -   ׀Today,thissubsectionisdefinedasthe killingofanothercommittedintheperpetrationoforattempttoperpetrateoneoftheenumeratedfelonies. .   ׀Ascanbeseenfromcomparingthepre1995versionandthe1995amendedversionofthissubsection,theGeneralAssemblydeletedtheword recklessfromthedefinitionoffelonymurder.Inthiscase,theindictmentsstatethekillingswere unlawfulratherthan reckless. Thedefendantdidnotchallengetheomissionof recklessfromthesetwocountsoftheindictmentspriortotrial.Theissuewasnotraisedduringthecourseofthesentencingphase.Itwasnotraisedinthemotionforanewtrialoramendedmotionforanewtrial.Inotherwords,thedefendanthaselectedtoraisetheissueforthefirsttimeinthisCourt. Thedefendantwasawarethecountsoftheindictmentschargedthecapitaloffenseoffelonymurder.Twoattorneyswereappointedtorepresentthedefendant.Thestategavenoticeitintendedtoseekthedeathpenalty.Thedefendantfiledmotionschallengingtheconstitutionalityofthedeathpenalty.Defensecounselremindedthetrialcourtthiswasacapitalcaseduringthehearingonthepretrialmotions.Theprospectivejurorswerequestionedregardingtheirrespectiveviewsconcerningthedeathpenalty. Oncethejurywasempaneled,defensecounselannouncedtothetrialcourtandtheassistantdistrictattorneygeneralforthefirsttimehisclientwaspleadingguiltytoCountIIinbothindictments,thefelonymurdercount.TheassistantdistrictattorneygeneraldemandedthatthedefendantpleadguiltytopremeditatedmurderasallegedinCountIofbothindictments.DefensecounselinsistedthedefendantwaspleadingguiltytoCountIIandhewouldnotpleadguiltytopremeditatedmurder.Thetwoassistantdistrictattorneygeneralsdiscussedthematter.TheysubsequentlyagreedthedefendantcouldpleadguiltytoCountII,thefelonymurdercount,ineachindictment.   A.    Acriminalprosecutioniscommencedbythereturnofanindictmentorpresentmentbythegrandjuryinthecountywheretheoffenseoccurred.TheTennesseeConstitutionprovidesanaccusedmaynot beputtoansweranycriminalchargebutbypresentment,indictmentorimpeachment. /   ׀TheConstitutionalsorequiresanindictmentorpresentmenttostate thenatureandcauseoftheaccusation. 0   ׀Inaddition,thestatutesofthisstateaddresstheallegationstobecontainedinanindictmentorpresentment.Tenn.CodeAnn.4013202states:   X    Theindictmentmuststatethefactsconstitutingtheoffenseinordinaryandconciselanguage,withoutprolixityorrepetition,insuchamannerastoenableapersonofcommonunderstandingtoknowwhatisintended,andwiththatdegreeofcertaintywhichwillenablethecourt,onconviction,topronouncetheproperjudgment;andinnocasearesuchwordsas forceandarmsor contrarytotheformofthestatutenecessary.      X  Whilethedescriptionofanoffenseallegedinanindictmentorpresentment mustbesufficientindistinctness,certainty,andprecisiontoenabletheaccusedtoknowwhatoffenseshe[orshe]ischargedwithandtounderstandthespecialnatureofthechargeheiscalledupontoanswer, 1   ׀itisnotnecessaryto amplifyandencumberthechargebycircumstantialdetailandminutedescription. 2   ׀Asageneralrule,itissufficienttostatetheoffensechargedinthewordsofthestatute, 3   ׀orwordswhicharetheequivalenttothewordscontainedinthestatute. 4    Whendeterminingthesufficiencyofanindictmentorpresentment,severalfactorsmustbeconsidered.First,acourtmustconsiderwhethertheindictmentorpresentmentallegestheelementsoftheoffensewhichisintendedtobecharged.Second,thecourtmustconsiderwhethertheindictmentorpresentmentsufficientlyapprisesthedefendantoftheoffenseheiscalledupontodefend.Third,thetrialcourtmustbeabletodeterminebyreadingtheindictmentorpresentmenttheoffenseitmustapplythejudgmenttoifthedefendantisconvicted.Fourth,thedefendantmustbeabletodeterminewithaccuracyfromreadingtheindictmentorpresentmenttowhatextentheorshemaypleadformeracquittalorconvictioninasubsequentprosecutionforthesameoffense.̀   B.    Asageneralrule,thefailuretoraiseanissuepertainingtoanindictmentpretrialconstitutesawaiveroftheissue. 5   ׀Therearetwoexceptionstothisrule.First,jurisdictionalissuesraisedbytheindictmentorpresentmentarenotwaived. 6   ׀Also,issuesconcerningwhethertheindictmentorpresentmentallegesacriminaloffensearenotwaived. 7   ׀Inthiscase,thedefendantcontendsthetwocountsdonotallegeacriminaloffensebecauseanelementoftheoffensehasnotbeenalleged. Whenadefendantvoluntarily,knowingly,andintelligentlyentersapleaofguilty,thedefendantwaivesallpriornonjurisdictional,procedural,andconstitutionaldefectswhichoccurredpriortothetimethepleaofguiltywasentered. 8   ׀ThisCourthasreasonedthatadefendantwhohasenteredapleaofguiltyhasnostandinginanappellatecourttocomplainofanyerrorcommittedinthefactfindingprocessleadingtohisconviction. 9   ׀Thisruleisapplicabletodefectsinanindictment. :    WhilethisCourtisoftheopinionthedefendanthaswaivedthisissue,theissuewillbeconsideredonthemerits.   C.    ThetwocountsoftheindictmentattackedbytheappellantcontainsufficientallegationstocomplywiththeTennesseeConstitution,theapplicablestatute,andthecommonlawrulescreatedbythesupremecourt.Thecountsallegethedefendantkilledthevictims,hekilledthevictimsduringtheperpetrationofoneoftheenumeratedfelonies,andthekillingswereunlawful.Thus,itisclearthedefendantwasapprisedofthespecificcrimeshewasrequiredtodefend;thetrialcourtcouldreadthesecountsandknowtheoffensetoapplythejudgmenttowhenthedefendantwasconvicted;andthespecificnatureoftheallegationswillpermitthedefendanttointerposeapleaofformerconvictioninasubsequentprosecution. Itisobviousfromtherecordthedefendantwasnotsurprisedorhamperedindefendingthesecountsoftheindictments.Tothecontrary,hespecificallyandstrategicallyinsistedonpleadingguiltytothesetwospecificoffenses.Aspreviouslystated,theassistantdistrictattorneygeneralwantedhimtopleadtopremeditatedmurderasallegedinCountIofeachindictment.Defensecounselrejectedthis.Thediscussionregardingthechoiceofoffensesthedefendantsdesiretopleadguiltytofelonymurderversusthestatesdesireforthedefendanttopleadguiltytopremeditatedmurderconsumesseveralpagesoftherecord.Finally,thetwoassistantdistrictattorneygeneralsconferred,and,thereafter,agreedthedefendantcouldpleadguiltytoCountIIofeachindictment.Thesubmissionhearingillustratesthedefendantknewthenatureofthechargestowhichhewaspleadingguilty.Moreover,heconfessedtothecommissionoftheseveryoffenses,namely,kickingthedooropentogainentryintotheapartment,arminghimselfandAndersonwithashotgunwhentheyenteredtheapartment,andkillingbothvictims. Itisapparentthedefendantchosenottoraisethisissuebefore,duringorafterthetrialforstrategicpurposes.Hesimplyplacedthisissueinhishippocket,waitedtoseeifthejurywouldreturndeathsentences,and,whenthejuryreturnedsuchsentences,heassertedthisissueforthefirsttimeinthisCourt.Thistacticaldecisionmayhavebeentheprecisereason,oroneofthereasons,whydefensecounselcontinuallyinsistedthedefendantbepermittedtopleadguiltytofelonymurder.Thecountsallegingpremeditatedmurderwerefaciallyregular.Thedefendantsargumentastothesufficiencyofthesecountsoftheindictmentwouldnotapplytothepremeditatedmurdercounts. Thisissueiswithoutmerit.   II.@ @ SUFFICIENCYOFTHEAGGRAVATINGCIRCUMSTANCE ;      Thedefendantcontendstheevidencecontainedintherecordisinsufficient,asamatteroflaw,tosupportafindingbyarationaltrieroffactthatthetwofelonymurdersinthiscasewereespeciallyheinous,atrocious,orcruelinthattheyinvolvedtortureorseriousphysicalabusebeyondthatnecessarytoproducedeath <   ׀beyondareasonabledoubt.Hearguesasinglegunshotwoundtotheheadwhichresultsintheinstantaneousdeathofthevictimdoesnotconstitute torturewithinthemeaningofthisaggravatingcircumstance(i)(5). =    TheStateofTennesseecontendsthisaggravatingcircumstancewasestablishedbeyondareasonabledoubt.Thestateconcedesthatkillingbothvictimswithasinglegunshotwoundtotheheaddidnotresultinthe inflictionofseverephysicalpainor seriousphysicalabusebeyondthatnecessarytoproducedeath.ThestateargueshowevertheevidenceestablishesthisaggravatingcircumstancebeyondareasonabledoubtbecausetheappellantinflictedseverementalpaintoMr.andMrs.Jacksonwhiletheywerealiveandconscious. Theverdictformreturnedbythejurysupportsthestatesargument.Thejurywroteontheform: heinous,atrocious,crueltorture.   A.    Thefirststepinresolvingthisissueisthedeterminationofthestandardofappellatereviewtobeappliedinthiscase.InStatev.Williams, >   ׀thesupremecourtstatedthestandardofreviewsetforthinJacksonv.Virginia ?   ׀governsthedeterminationofwhetheranaggravatingcircumstancehasbeenestablishedbeyondareasonabledoubt. Whenanaccusedchallengesthesufficiencyoftheconvictingevidence,thisCourtmustreviewtherecordtodetermineiftheevidenceadducedattrialissufficient"tosupportthefindingbythetrieroffactofguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt." @   ׀Thisruleisapplicabletofindingsofguiltbasedupondirectevidence,circumstantialevidence,oracombinationofdirectandcircumstantialevidence. A    Indeterminingthesufficiencyoftheconvictingevidence,thisCourtdoesnotreweighorreevaluatetheevidence. B   ׀NormaythisCourtsubstituteitsinferencesforthosedrawnbythetrieroffactfromcircumstantialevidence. C   ׀Tothecontrary,thisCourtisrequiredtoaffordtheStateofTennesseethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidencecontainedintherecordaswellasallreasonableandlegitimateinferenceswhichmaybedrawnfromtheevidence. D   ׀ Questionsconcerningthecredibilityofthewitnesses,theweightandvaluetobegiventheevidence,aswellasallfactualissuesraisedbytheevidenceareresolvedbythetrieroffact,notthisCourt. E   ׀InStatev.Grace, F   ׀ourSupremeCourtsaid:"Aguiltyverdictbythejury,approvedbythetrialjudge,accreditsthetestimonyofthewitnessesfortheStateandresolvesallconflictsinfavorofthetheoryoftheState." Sinceaverdictofguiltremovesthepresumptionofinnocenceandreplacesitwithapresumptionofguilt,theaccused,astheappellant,hastheburdeninthisCourtofillustratingwhytheevidenceisinsufficienttosupporttheverdictsreturnedbythetrieroffact. G   ׀ThisCourtwillnotdisturbaverdictofguiltduetothesufficiencyoftheevidenceunlessthefactscontainedintherecordareinsufficient,asamatteroflaw,forarationaltrieroffacttofindthattheaccusedisguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt. H   ׀   B.    Priorto1989,aggravatingcircumstance(i)(5)provided: Themurderwasespeciallyheinous,atrociousorcruelinthatitinvolvedtortureordepravityofmind. I   ׀TheTennesseeGeneralAssemblyamendedthisaggravatingcircumstancein1989. J   ׀The1989revision,whichisapplicabletothiscase,states: Themurderwasespeciallyheinous,atrocious,orcruelinthatitinvolvedtortureorseriousphysicalabusebeyondthatnecessarytoproducedeath. K   ׀Ascanbeseen,theGeneralAssemblydeletedthephrase depravityofmindandinserted seriousphysicalabusebeyondthatnecessarytoproducedeath. In1985,thesupremecourtdefinedtheterm tortureinthecontextitisusedinthisaggravatingcircumstanceinStatev.Williams. L   ׀InWilliams,thesupremecourtsaid: Torturemeanstheinflictionofseverephysicalormentalpainuponthevictimwhileheorsheremainsaliveandconscious. M    ThequestionthisCourtmustnextconsideriswhetherthereisproofbeyondareasonabledoubtthedefendantinflictedseverementalpainwhilethevictimswerealiveandconscious,andwillthesefactssupporttheimpositionofthisaggravatingcircumstancetosupportadeathsentence.   C.    Asearchforapriorsupremecourtdecisionapplyingthe inflictionofsevere...mentalpainwhilethe[victim]remainsaliveandconsciousnesshasbeenfruitless.Mostofthecasesdecidedbythesupremecourtinterpretthepre1989versionofaggravatingcircumstance(i)(5).Aspreviouslynoted,thepriorversionstatedtherecouldbeeithertortureordepravityofmind.Thesedecisionssayeitherbothprongsofthepre1989versionhavebeenestablished,ortheactionsofthedefendantconstitutedtortureordepravityofmind.Thus,itisimpossibleforthisCourttodeterminewhetherthesupremecourthasconcludedinthesecaseswhethertherewas(a)theinflictionofseverephysicalpain,(b)theinflictionofseverementalpain,or(c)theaccusedpossessedadepravedmind.ItisapparentfromreadingtheStateofTennesseesbrieftheassistantattorneygeneralencounteredthissamedilemma. ThestatecitesthecaseofStatev.King N   ׀assupportingitstheoryregardingtheinflictionofseverementalpain.Thestatesrelianceonthiscaseismisplaced.InKing,thedefendantwasconvictedoffelonymurder.Thefeloniesweresimplekidnappingandrobbery.Thedefendantmadethevictimgetintothetrunkofhercar,tookhertoaremotelocation,andmadehergetoutofthetrunkandlayontheground.Thevictimfacedthedefendant,beggedhimnottokillher,andtoldhimshewouldgivehimmoneyifhesparedherlife.Thedefendanttoldthevictimtoturnherheadawayfromhim.Hethenshotthevictiminthebackoftheheadoneormoretimes.ThesupremecourtwasnotcalledupontodecidetheissuenowbeforethisCourt.Thedefendantadmittedtheevidencecontainedintherecordwassufficienttosupporttheaggravatingcircumstancesfoundbythejurybeyondareasonabledoubt.Theonlyquestionbeforethesupremecourtwasthesufficiencyofthejuryinstructiongivenbythetrialcourtregardingthisaggravatingcircumstance.Thecourtfoundtheinstructionwassufficient,andtheevidencesupportedthiscircumstance.  IntherecentcaseofStatev.Odom, O   ׀thesupremecourtinathreetotwodecisionheldtheevidencedidnotestablishthisaggravatingcircumstance.There,thedefendantattackedaladywhowas78yearsofage.Asheattemptedtostealherpurse,theyfellintothefrontseatofthevictimsautomobile.Thedefendantsubsequentlyforcedthevictimintothebackseatoftheautomobileandcutthevictimwithhisknife.Whilethevictimpleadedwiththedefendanttostop,shereferredtohimas son.Thedefendantbecameangryduetotheuseoftheword sonandtoldthevictim Illgiveyouason.Hethenrapedthevictim,whowasstillavirgin.Heapparentlystabbedthevictimseveraltimes.Accordingtothedefendantsstatementtothepolice,hefeltthevictimwasaliveduringtheentireordealbecauseshespoketohimbeforehelefther.Thevictimliterallybledtodeathinternallyfromtheseriousknifewoundsinflictedbythedefendant.Themajorityopinionconcludedthesefactsdidnotconstitutetortureorseriousphysicalabusebeyondthatnecessarytoproducedeath.Inruling,thesupremecourtsaid:   X          X 8 8 Theissueremainswhethertheevidenceinthiscasewassufficienttoupholdafindingofthe(i)(5)aggravatingcircumstance.Wewellunderstandthatalmostallmurdersare heinous,atrocious,andcrueltosomedegree,andwehavenopurposetodemeanorminimizetheordealthismurdervictimexperienced.Inourview,however,rape(penilepenetration)doesnotordinarilyconstitute tortureor seriousphysicalabusewithinthemeaningofthestatute.Werewetoholdotherwise,everymurdercommittedintheperpetrationofrapecouldbeclassifiedasadeatheligibleoffense.Sucharesult,obviously,wouldnotsufficientlynarrowtheclassofperpetrators,norwoulditdistinguishthe worstoftheworseforwhomtheultimatepenaltymustbereserved.SeeStatev.Middlebrooks,840S.W.2d317(Tenn.1992).Inasimilarvein,andwiththesamedisclaimeraboveappearing,wemustrejecttheconclusionthatthethreestabwoundsevidencedinthiscaseconstituted tortureorseriousphysicalabusebeyondthatnecessarytoproducedeath.8 8 Asweconsiderthecircumstanceshere,wedonotintendtodiminishwhatsurelymusthavebeenaterrifyingandhorrorfilledexperienceforthevictim.Mostassuredly,themurderwasreprehensibleinthepurestsenseofthewordnearlyallmurdersare.However,theaggravatingcircumstanceunderreviewmustbereservedforapplicationonlytothosecaseswhich,bycomparisonorcontrast,canbearticulatelydeterminedtobethevery worstoftheworse.8 8 Aspreviouslystated,thedefendantcontendsthattheevidencedoesnotsupportthejurysfindingthatthemurderwas especiallyheinous,atrocious,orcruel.Wehavethoroughlyconsideredthiscontentionandconcludethatunderthecriteriawehavediscussedtheevidenceintherecorddoesnotsupportthejurysfindingofthe heinous,atrocious,orcruelcircumstance. P   ̀ WhilethemajorityopinionadoptedtheWilliamsdefinitionoftorture,itisapparentthemajorityopiniondidnotconsiderwhetherOdominflictedseverementalpaintothevictimsinceshewasstillaliveandconsciouswhenOdomfledfromthesceneofthecrime.Ifmentalpainremainspartofthedefinitionof torture,thiswasaclassiccasewhereseverementalpainwasinflicted.Themajorityopiniondescribestheordealthevictimenduredas terrifyingand horrorfilled.  ThedissentingopinioninOdomespousestheviewthatthisaggravatingcircumstancewasestablishedbeyondareasonabledoubtbecausethevictimwastorturedbythedefendant.JusticeAnderson,theauthorofthedissentingopinion,stated: Inthiscase,thedefendantinflictedseverephysicalandmentalpainuponthevictimwhilesheremainedaliveandconscious. Q   ׀ ThisCourtisoftheopinionaggravatingcircumstance(i)(5)canbeestablishedbyprovingthedefendantinflictedseverementalpainwhilethevictimwasaliveandconscious.ThisCourthasheldsuchproofissufficient. R   ׀ThenextquestionthisCourtmustaddressiswhethertheevidenceestablishesthisfactorbeyondareasonabledoubt.   D.    WhenMr.JacksontoldthedefendantandAndersonhedidnotunderstandwhatAndersonmeantby wantingtogetsomething,thedefendantthoughttheywereatthewrongapartment.Nevertheless,thedefendantandAndersonkickedthedooropenandenteredtheapartmentwieldingasawedoffshotgun.ThedefendantquestionedMr.Jacksonconcerningthelocationofthemoneyanddrugs.Mr.Jacksontoldthedefendanthedidnotunderstandthenatureofhisinquiry.Jacksonwasplacedinaclosetlocatedinhisdaughtersbedroom. Andersonwenttothebackoftheapartment.HeencounteredMrs.Jackson.Hemadehersubmitwhileherapedher.Shesubsequentlywentintothebathroomoffthemasterbedroom.Shewasscreamingandpleadingforherlife. TherecordreflectstheJacksonswerehardworking,Godfearingpeople.Theybothworkedregularly,andtheywereraisingtheirsmallchild.Thechildwasthreeyearsoldwhenbothofherparentsweremurdered.OnecanimaginetheterrorwhichfilledMr.andMrs.Jacksonwhentwostrangerswieldingashotgunenteredtheirapartmentat12:30a.m.ThestrangerswereaskingquestionswhichdidnotmakesensetoMr.Jackson.Thus,thedefendantandAndersonshouldhaveleftwhenitbecameapparentMr.andMrs.Jacksonwerenotinvolvedindrugtrafficking.Instead,thedefendantandAndersonscaredandhorrifiedtheJacksons,anddidwhattheJacksonsmostassuredlyfearedtheykilledthecouple.Themurdersinthiscaseweresenselessandmeanspirited. WhenthedefendantandAndersonkickedthedooropenandwerewieldingashotgun,Mr.JacksonknewthedefendantandAndersonwereextremelymeananddangerous.Certainly,fearandhorriblethoughtsmusthaverunthroughhismind.Washegoingtobeinjuredorkilled?Washiswifegoingtobeinjuredorkilled?Andwhatabouthisdaughter?Wouldtheyharmheraswell?HesurelymusthaveknownhiswifewasbeingrapedsinceAndersonapparentlybeganthisactbeforeMr.Jacksonwasconfinedtothecloset.Hemusthaveheardhiswifescreamandpleadforherlife. ThereisevidenceintherecordfromwhichajurycouldfindthattheJacksonsdaughterwaslayingonapillowintheclosetwhenherfatherwaskilled.Hernightgownwassplatteredwithblood.ThepathologistsaidMr.Jacksondiedinstantlywhenhewasshot,andhisheartwouldhavestoppedpumpingblood.Arationaltrieroffactcouldconcludethechildwasinsidetheclosetwhenherfatherwasmurdered,andhernightgownwassplatteredwithbloodfromthegunshotwoundinflictedbythedefendant.ItwasahorriblewoundwhichopenedtherightsideofMr.Jacksonshead.Thewallsinsidetheclosetweresprayedwithblood. ThepainMr.Jacksonenduredwhenherealizedhewasgoingtobekilledandhisdaughterpossiblymurderedhadtobesevere.Hewashelplesstoprotecthisdaughterfromthedefendantandtheshotgunhehadinhispossession. Mrs.Jacksondidnotknowifshewasgoingtobekilled.Shedidnotknowwhereherhusbandanddaughterwere.Shehadtowonderwhetherherhusbandanddaughterweregoingtobeharmed.Shewasnodoubtconcernedabouttheremainderofherfamily.Wouldshehaveahusband?Wouldshehaveachild?Wouldshelive?Whatotherthoughtscouldsheembracewhileshewasraped,threatened,andliterallyterrorizedbythesetwototalstrangersshortlybeforebeingkilled.̛ InStatev.Hodges,theappellanthandcuffedthevictim,wrappedtapearoundhislegs,andplacedapillowoverhisheadwhileheandhisgirlfriendransackedthevictimsresidence.Theysatinthelivingroomdrinkingsoftdrinkswhiletheydiscussedwhethertheyweregoingtokillthevictim.Thevictimcouldhearthisconversation.ThisCourtheldtheconductofHodgesconstituted tortureasdefinedinWilliams󀄄theinflictionofseverementalpainwhilethevictimwasaliveandconscious. WhattheJacksonswerecausedtoendureatthehandsofthedefendantandAndersonbeforetheyweremurderedwasespeciallyheinous,atrociousandcruel.Thedefendantsconductwassenseless,vile,repulsive,odious,mean,andevil.Insummary,thedefendantinflictedseverementalpaintoMr.andMrs.Jacksonwhiletheywerealiveandconscious;andtheevidencecontainedintherecordissufficientbeyondareasonabledoubttosupportafindingbyarationaltrieroffactthatthemurderswereheinous,atrocious,andcruelbecauseofthementaltortureenduredbythevictims.   III. @ EVIDENTIARYISSUES     ThedefendantcontendsthetrialcourtcommittederrorofprejudicialdimensionsbypermittingtheStateofTennesseetointroduce inflammatoryandirrelevantevidenceinviolationof[his]constitutionalrightsunderthe8thand14thamendments.Hearguesthetrialcourtshouldhaveexcluded(a)certainphotographsbecausetheywerenotrelevanttoanyaggravatingcircumstance,(b)thefactAndersonrapedTensiaJackson,and(c)thestatessuggestionthedefendantplacedtheJacksonsthreeyearoldchildintheclosetwithThomasJackson.TheStateofTennesseecontendstheevidencechallengedbythedefendantwasproperlyadmitted.   A.    Whenthedefendantinacapitalcasepleadsguilty,thesentencinghearingisanalogoustoanewsentencinghearingorderedbyanappellatecourt.InStatev.ϜNichols, S   ׀wherethedefendantenteredapleaofguiltytoacapitaloffense,thesupremecourtappliedthecaselawgoverning resentencinghearings.Consequently,thisbodyoflawistobeappliedinresolvingtheissuesraisedbythedefendantinthiscase. Asageneralrule,anyevidencethatrelatestothecircumstancesofthemurders,theaggravatingcircumstancesofthemurders,orthemitigatingcircumstances,isadmissibleifithasprobativevalueindeterminingtheappropriatepunishment. T   ׀Thestatutewhichgovernstheintroductionofevidenceinacapitalsentencinghearingprovides:   X    Inthesentencingproceeding,evidencemaybepresentedastoanymatterthatthecourtdeemsrelevanttothepunishmentandmayinclude,butnotbelimitedto,thenatureandcircumstancesofthecrime;thedefendantscharacter,backgroundhistory,andphysicalcondition;anyevidencetendingtoestablishorrebuttheaggravatingcircumstancesenumeratedinsubsection(i);andanyevidencetendingtoestablishorrebutanymitigatingfactors.Anysuchevidencewhichthecourtdeemstohaveprobativevalueontheissueofpunishmentmaybereceivedregardlessofitsadmissibilityundertherulesofevidence;provided,thatthedefendantisaccordedafairopportunitytorebutanyhearsaystatementssoadmitted.However,thissubsectionshallnotbeconstruedtoauthorizetheintroductionofanyevidencesecuredinviolationoftheconstitutionoftheUnitedStatesorofthestateofTennessee. U        X  Sincethereisnoguiltphasewhentheaccusedpleadsguiltytothecapitaloffenseorinresentencingafteraninitialfindingofguiltbyajury,thepartiesareentitledtointroduceevidencethatrelatestothecircumstancesoftheoffensesothetrieroffact willhave[the]essentialbackgroundinformationtoensurethatthejuryactsfromabaseofknowledgeinsentencingthedefendant. V   ׀Thephrase backgroundinformation W   ׀includesevidenceasto(a)howthecrimewascommitted,(b)theinjuries,(c)theaggravatingcircumstances,(d)themitigatingcircumstances,and(e)anyotherevidencewhichisrelevanttopunishment. X    InStatev.Teague, Y   ׀commonlyreferredtoasTeagueII,anewsentencinghearingwasconductedbythetrialcourtafterthecasewasremandedbythesupremecourt.Thetrialcourtpermittedthestatetoestablish(a)thevictimsapartmenthadbeenforciblyentered,(b)thevictimhadbeendrownedinthebathtub,(c)theaccusedsarrestandthefacthewasarmedwithapistolwhenarrested,and(d)theaccusedtoldtwocompanionshekilledthevictim.ThesupremecourtrejectedTeaguesassertiontheevidenceatthesentencinghearingshouldbelimitedtoevidencewhichisrelevanttoaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances.Inruling,thecourtsaid:   X    Thedefendantquestionstheintroductionofbackgroundevidenceconcerningthemurder,insistingthatinthesentencingproceedingonlyevidencerelevanttoaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesshouldhavebeenallowedatthehearing.GuidelinesforresentencinghearingsingeneralhavebeensetoutinFarrisv.State,535S.W.2d608,621(Tenn.1976);Hunterv.State,496S.W.2d900,903(Tenn.1972);andinHuffmanv.State,200Tenn.487,292S.W.2d738,743(1956).Undertheseguidelines,evidenceofhowthecrimewascommitted,theinjuries,andaggravatingandmitigatingfactorsareadmissible.Thereappearstobenoreasonwhysuchguidelines,carefullylimitingevidencetotheessentialbackground,shouldnotapplyincapitalcasesinordertoensurethatthejuryactsfromabaseofknowledgeinsentencingthedefendant.Seee.g.,Blankenshipv.State,251Ga.621,308S.E.2d369,371(1983)(partiesatcapitalresentencingareentitledtoofferevidencerelatingtocircumstancesofcrime). Z        X  InStatev.Nichols, [   ׀thedefendant,asinthiscase,enteredapleaofguiltytothecapitaloffenseoffirstdegreemurderintheperpetrationofafelony.Ajurywasempaneledtodeterminetheappropriatepunishment.Thestatewaspermittedtointroduceevidenceregarding(a)thenatureandcircumstancesofthecrime,(b)theaccusedsvideotapedconfession,(c)the testimonyfromthemedicalexamineraboutthenatureandextentofthevictimsinjuriesandthecauseofherdeath,(d)thetestimonyofthedetectiveswhoquestionedtheaccused,and(e)theevidenceoftheaccusedspriorcrimesofviolence. \   ׀Nicholscontendedonappealthetrialcourtcommittederrorofprejudicialdimensionsbypermitting extensiveevidenceofthenatureandcircumstancesofthecrime.Hearguedthe onlyevidencerelevanttoaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesshouldhavebeenallowed. ^   ׀InrejectingNicholsargument,thesupremecourtreferredtotheapplicablestatuteandthecourtsopinioninTeagueII,andsaid:   X    Becausethedefendantpledguilty,thesentencingjuryhere,asinTeague,hadnoinformationabouttheoffense,absentthecomplainedofevidence.Adescriptionofthecrimeanditscircumstanceswasthusclearlyadmissible.Moreover,an individualized[sentencing]determinationbasedonthedefendantscharacterandthecircumstancesofthecrimeisconstitutionallyrequired.SeeZantv.Stephens,462U.S.862,879,103S.Ct.2733,2744,77L.Ed.2d235(1983).Inthiscase,thetrialcourtpermittedtheintroductionofevidencetendingto individualizethecaseforthejury,whilecarefullylimitingtheevidencetotestimonyrelevanttothecrime.Wefindnoerrorinthisregard. _        X  InStatev.Bigbee, `   ׀thesupremecourtaffirmedBigbeesconviction,butremandedthecasetothetrialcourtforanewsentencinghearing.Indoingso,theCourtnoted:   X    Weshouldpointout,however,that [a]taresentencinghearing,boththeStateanddefendantareentitledtoofferevidencerelatingtothecircumstancesofthecrimesothatthesentencingjurywillhaveessentialbackgroundinformationtoensurethatthejuryactsfromabaseofknowledgeinsentencingthedefendant....Onremand,thatrightshouldbeaffordedthisdefendant. a        X  InStatev.Teague, b   ׀commonlyreferredtoasTeagueIV,thetrialcourtgrantedTeaguesmotionthattheprosecutiondiscloseallexculpatoryBradymaterialforuseinthedefendantsthirdsentencinghearing.Thecourtdeniedthestatesmotioninliminetopreventthedisclosureofevidencewhichchallengedthedefendantsguilt.ThestatesoughtandwasgrantedaninterlocutoryappealpursuanttoRule9,TennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.ThisCourtreversedthetrialcourtsfindingthatevidenceofthedefendantsinnocencewasadmissible;theopinionwaspredicateduponpriorsupremecourtopinions.ThesupremecourtreversedthisCourt.Indoingso,thecourtsaid:   X    Boththestatuteandpriorcaselawdictatethatthedefendanthastherighttopresentatthesentencinghearing,whetherbythejurywhichheardtheguiltphaseorbyajuryonresentencing,evidencerelatingtothecircumstancesofthecrimeortheaggravatingormitigatingcircumstances,includingevidencewhichmaymitigatehisculpability.Evidenceotherwiseadmissibleunderthepleadingsandapplicablerulesofevidence,isnotrenderedinadmissiblebecauseitmayshowthatthedefendantdidnotkillthevictimsolongasitisprobativeontheissueofthedefendantspunishment. c        X  NeitherthesupremecourtnorthisCourtcandelineateabrightlinerulefordeterminingtheexactevidencethatcanbeadmittedatasentencinghearingfollowingadefendantspleaofguiltytoacapitaloffenseorthegrantingofanewsentencinghearingfromatrialorappellatecourt.Thefactsandevidenceintroducedatsuchhearingswillvaryfromcasetocase.Thedefendantineachcaseisdifferentfromthedefendantsinallothercapitalcases. Theapplicablestatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(c),providesthedeterminationofwhatevidencemaybeadmittedinacapitalsentencinghearingrestswithinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt.Moreover,anappellatecourtwillnotinterferewiththeexerciseofthisdiscretionunlessclearabuseappearsonthefaceoftherecord.̀     B.    Evidenceisrelevantifithas anytendencytomaketheexistenceofanyfactthatisofconsequencetothedeterminationoftheactionmoreprobableorlessprobablethanitwouldbewithouttheevidence. d   ׀Althoughrelevantevidenceisgenerallyadmissible, e   ׀it maybeexcludedifitsprobativevalueissubstantiallyoutweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudice...orbyconsiderationsofunduedelay,wasteoftime,orneedlesspresentationorcumulativeevidence. f    Thefactrelevantevidenceisprejudicialdoesnotmeantheevidencemustbeexcludedasamatteroflaw.AsthisCourtsaidinStatev.Dulsworth: g   ׀ Anyevidencewhichtendstoestablishtheguiltofanaccusedishighlyprejudicialtotheaccused,butthisdoesnotmeanthattheevidenceisinadmissibleasamatteroflaw. h   ׀AsRule403,TennesseeRulesofEvidence,states: thedangerofunfairprejudicemust substantiallyoutweightheprobativevalueoftheevidencebeforetheaccusedisentitledtohavetheevidenceexcluded. j    Thedeterminationofwhetherevidenceisrelevant,or,ifrelevant,shouldbeexcludedforoneofthereasonssetforthinRule403,addressesitselftothesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt. k   ׀Indecidingtheseissues,thetrialcourtmustconsider,amongotherthings,thequestionsoffactthejurywillhavetoconsiderindeterminingtheaccusedsguiltaswellasotherevidencewhichhasbeenintroducedduringthecourseofthetrial. l   ׀IfthetrialcourtintheexerciseofitsdiscretionfindstheevidenceisrelevantwithinthemeaningofRule401,andthedefendantisnotentitledtohavetheevidenceexcludedforoneofthegroundssetforthinRule403,thisCourtwillnotinterferewiththeexerciseofthisdiscretionunlessitappearsonthefaceoftherecordthetrialcourtclearlyabuseditsdiscretion. m     C.    Thepurposeforintroducingphotographsintoevidenceistoassistthetrieroffact.Asageneralrule,theintroductionofphotographshelpsthetrieroffacttoseeforitselfwhatisdepictedinaphotographratherthanrelyinguponawitnesstodescribewhatisdepicted. Beforeaphotographmaybeintroducedintoevidence,theremustbeadeterminationbythetrialcourt(a)thematterdepictedinthephotographisrelevanttoanissuewhichthejurymustdecideindeterminingtheguiltorappropriatesentenceforthecrimecommittedbythedefendant,and(b)theprobativevalueofthematterdepictedinthephotographoutweighsanyprejudicialeffectitmayhaveuponthetrieroffact. n   ׀ Inthiscase,thetrialcourtspentanextendedperiodoftimelisteningtotheargumentsofcounselregardingtheadmissibilityofthephotographstheStateofTennesseewantedtointroduce.Thecourtspentadditionaltimecarefullyviewingthesephotographs.Thecourtexcludedsomeofthephotographs.Thebalanceofthephotographswasintroducedasevidenceduringthesentencinghearing. ThisCourthasviewedthephotographswhichareattackedinthisissue.Theydepictthevictimsastheywerefoundbythepoliceofficerswhowerecalledtothescene.Thetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninadmittingthesephotographsbecausethephotographswereadmissibleasbackgroundinformationregardingthecommissionofthecrimesinquestion.Inaddition,thephotographsestablishwherethevictimswereshot. Thissubissueiswithoutmerit.   D.    ThedefendantcontendsthefactAndersonrapedTensiaJacksonbeforeshewaskilledshouldnothavebeenadmittedintoevidence sincetherewasabsolutelynoevidencethatheparticipatedin,orevenknewofhiscodefendantsintentionstocommitrape.TheStateofTennesseecontendsthisevidencewasclearlyadmissible. TherapeofMrs.Jacksonwasarelevantcircumstancewhich,alongwithotherrelevantcircumstances,establishedtheseverementalpaininflictedbythedefendantandAndersonwhileMrs.Jacksonwasaliveandconscious.ThedefendantknewAndersonwasrapingMrs.JacksonbecausehewentintotheroomandretrievedtheshotgunwhileAndersonwasintheact.ThedefendantdidnoturgeorencourageAndersontoceaseanddesist.Moreover,theysharedthesameculpablementalstate.ThedefendantcannotnowdivorcehimselffromtheactscommittedbyAnderson.Theywerecoconspirators.Theycommittedtheactsinquestiontogether. Insummary,theactionsofAndersoncouldbeconsideredbythejurywhendeterminingtheexistenceofaggravatingcircumstance(i)(5)relativetotheinflictionofseverementalpainwhileMr.andMrs.Jacksonwerealiveandconscious. Thissubissueiswithoutmerit.   E.   Ӏ Thedefendantcontends thesuggestionthatthisdefendantplacedthechild...intheclosetwithherdeadfatherwasnotrelevanttoanyaggravatingcircumstance.TheStateofTennesseetakestheviewthesuggestionwasinfactrelevant. ThesuggestionthedefendantorAndersonplacedthechildinsidetheclosetwithherfatherisnotfarfetched.Thepicturesofthechildsbedindicatethechildwasnotinherbed.Thereisabutcherknifelyingonthechildsbed.Althoughthedefendantstatedthesmallchildwasinherbedwhenhelefttheapartment,thereisevidencetosupportthetheorythatthechildwasinsidetheclosetwhenthedefendantkilledThomasJackson. Aspreviouslystated,thepathologisttestifiedthemultiplepelletsfromtheshotgunblastliterallyexplodedMr.Jacksonsbrain.Accordingtothepathologist,Mr.Jacksonsheartwouldhavestoppedpumpingbloodthroughhisbodyimmediately.Yetthenightgownofthesmallchildwassplatteredwithblood.GiventhestateoftherecordandthenatureofMr.Jacksonswound,thejurycouldhavereasonablyconcludedthechildwasintheclosetwhenthedefendantkilledherfather.Thenatureofthewoundwouldhaveresultedinbloodsplatteringinsidethecloset. Insummary,thefactthechildwasnotinherbedasthedefendantstatedlendscredencetothetheorythechildwasrequiredtogetintothecloset,andthechildwasinsidetheclosetwhenherfatherwasshot.ThiswasrelevanttoestablishtheinflictionofseverementalpainwhileMr.Jacksonwasaliveandconscious.HisconcernforhisdaughterandthefactshemightalsobekillednodoubtcausedMr.Jacksonseverementalpainwhilehewasaliveandconscious. Thissubissueiswithout.   IV.  DEFENDANTSSTATEMENT   Thedefendantcontendsthetrialcourtcommittederrorofprejudicialdimensionsbydenyinghismotiontosuppresstheincriminatingstatementshegavetopoliceofficers.Sincethedefendantenteredpleasofguiltytotheoffensesoffelonymurder,thisissuewaswaived. Aspreviouslystated,whenadefendantvoluntarily,knowingly,andintelligentlyentersapleaofguilty,thedefendantwaivesallpriornonjurisdictional,procedural,andconstitutionaldefectswhichoccurredpriortothetimethepleaofguiltywasentered. o   ׀ThisCourthassaidthatadefendantwhoentersapleaofguiltyhasnostandinginanappellatecourttocomplainofanyerrorcommittedinthefactfindingprocessleadingtohisconviction. p    NoeffortwasmadetopreservethisissueforappellatereviewpursuanttoTenn.R.App.P.3(b)orTenn.R.Crim.P.37(b)(2)(iv).Ifthedefendanthaspreservedthisissueinconformitywiththeserules,itisdoubtfulwhetherthisissuewouldbedispositiveoftheprosecutionagainstthedefendant. ThisCourthasreviewedtheevidenceadmittedatthesuppressionhearing.Itisparentheticallynotedthedefendantisnotentitledtoreliefonthisground.   V. @ SENTENCEOFLIFEWITHOUTPOSSIBILITYOFPAROLE    Thedefendantcontendsthetrialcourtcommittederrorofprejudicialdimensionbyfailingtoanswerajurorsquestionconcerningthedefendantsparoleeligibilityifalifesentencewasimposedbythejury.Thedefendantfurthercontendsthecourtshouldhaveincludedaninstructiononthesentencingoptionoflifewithoutthepossibilityofparoleinthechargegiventothejury.Thestateassertsthetrialjudgeactedaccordingtothemandatesofthelaw. Justassoonasthetrialcourtcompletedgivingthechargetothejury,oneofthejurorsaskedthejudge, Onlifeimprisonment,aretheyeligibleforparoleintheStateofTennessee,oristhatlife?Afterdiscussingthequestionwithcounsel,thejudgeinformedthejurorthathecouldnotanswerit. Thetrialcourtwascorrectinrefusingtoanswerthequestionpropoundedbythejuror.InStatev.Smith, q   ׀thesupremecourtspecificallyruledatrialcourtshouldnotanswerajurysquestionconcerningthemeaningofalifesentenceandthedefendantseligibilityofparole.ThisCourthasalsoansweredthisquestionadverselytothedefendant. r    Thedefendantsclaimthatthetrialcourtshouldhaveinstructedthejuryonlifewithoutthepossibilityofparoleasasentencingoptionisequallywithoutmerit.TheTennesseeGeneralAssemblyspecificallyprovidedthesentencingoptionoflifewithoutthepossibilityofparolewastoapplyinfirstdegreemurdercasesonandafterJuly1,1993. s   ׀TheappellantkilledtheJacksonspriortotheeffectivedateofthissentencingoption.Therefore,thetrialcourtproperlyrefusedtoinstructthejuryonthissentencingoption. v   ׀ Thisissueiswithoutmerit.   VI. @ CALDWELLVIOLATIONS     ThedefendantcontendstheassistantdistrictattorneygeneralviolatedtheruleenunciatedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinCaldwellv.Mississippi w   ׀duringrebuttalargument.Thestatecontendsthedefendanthaswaivedthisissuebyfailingtointerposeacontemporaneousobjectionwhenthestatementsweremade.Inthealternative,thestatearguestheassistantdistrictattorneygeneralsstatementswereappropriate. Duringrebuttalargument,theassistantdistrictattorney,respondingtostatementsmadebydefensecounsel,stated:8 8 8 8 Thelastthingthathesaidandwastalkingaboutmitigation,aboutyoutakingalife.AndI...respectfullyhavetotakeexceptiontowhatyousay.You[thejury]canttakealife.Youcantwalkoutofthatjuryboxandtouchthatman.      ****8 8 Belikeyoudlikethatsurgeontobe,dispassionate,professional.Dontletsomebodyputaguilttriponyou.Yourenottakinganybodyslife.Youcantdothat.Youdonthavethatpower.NeitherdoI. Aspreviouslystated,thefailuretointerposeacontemporaneousobjectionwhenadversarycounselengagesinallegedlyerroneousargumentconstitutesawaiveroftheissue. x   ׀However,duetothequalitativedifferencesbetweendeathandothersentences,theappellatecourtsofthisstateconsiderissuesoccurringduringthesentencinghearinginacapitalcasenotwithstandingwaiveroftheissue. y   ׀Therefore,thisCourtoptstoconsiderthisissueonthemerits. InCaldwell,theprosecutingattorneystatedtothejuryduringsummation"yourdecisionisnotthefinaldecision,""yourjobisreviewable,"and"thedecisionyourenderisautomaticallyreviewablebytheSupremeCourt." z   ׀Thetrialcourtoverruledthedefendantsobjectiontothesestatements.However,thetrialcourtinstructedtheprosecutingattorneytoinformthejuryitsdecisionwasautomaticallyreviewable.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheld"itisconstitutionallyimpermissibletorestadeathsentenceonadeterminationmadebyasentencerwhohasbeenledtobelievethattheresponsibilityfordeterminingtheappropriatenessofthedefendant'sdeathrestselsewhere." {   ׀TheCourtfoundtheargumentwasimproperandviolativeoftheConstitution. InRomanov.Oklahoma, |   ׀acasedecidedsubsequenttoCaldwell,theCourtnotedithas8 8 sincereadCaldwellas"relevantonlytocertaintypesofcommentthosethatmisleadthejuryastoitsroleinthesentencingprocessinawaythatallowsthejurytofeellessresponsiblethanitshouldforthesentencingdecision."Dardenv.Wainwright,477U.S.168,184,n.15,106S.Ct.2464,2473,n.15(1986),91L.Ed.2d144(1986).Thus,"[t]oestablishaCaldwellviolation,adefendantnecessarilymustshowthattheremarkstothejuryimproperlydescribedtheroleassignedtothejurybylocallaw."Duggerv.Adams,489U.S.401,407,109S.Ct.1211,1215,103L.Ed.2d435(1989). }     ThisCourthasreviewedthestatementmadebytheassistantdistrictattorneygeneralinthecontextitwasmade.ThestatementclearlydoesnotviolateCaldwell. Thisissueiswithoutmerit.    VII.VALIDITYOFVERDICTFORM    Thedefendantcontendsthejurysverdictwasnotauthorizedbylaw,and,therefore,thejurysverdictwasfaciallyvoid.Hearguestheverdictformgiventothejuryforthereturnofitsverdictwasdesignedforverdictsreturnedbeforethe1989amendmenttoTenn.CodeAnn.3913204(g)(1).TheStateofTennesseecontendsthisissuewaswaivedbecausethedefendantfailedto(a)makeacontemporaneousobjectionwhentheverdictsofthejurywerereadinopencourtand(b)includetheissueinhismotionforanewtrial.Inthealternative,thestatearguestheuseoftheverdictformconstitutedharmlesserror. Thetrialcourtinstructedthejuryonthestatesburdenofproofastoeachaggravatingcircumstanceassertedbythestate.Thecourtalsoinstructedthejuryonthemitigatingcircumstancesraisedbythedefendant.Thetrialcourtthentoldthejury:8 8 IfyouunanimouslydeterminethatatleastonestatutoryaggravatingcircumstanceorseveralstatutoryaggravatingcircumstanceshavebeenprovenbytheState,beyondareasonabledoubt,andsaidcircumstanceorcircumstanceshavebeenprovenbytheStatetooutweighanymitigatingcircumstanceorcircumstancesbeyondareasonabledoubt,thesentenceshallbedeath.TheJuryshallreducetowritingthestatutoryaggravatingcircumstanceorstatutoryaggravatingcircumstancessofoundandsignifythattheStatehasprovenbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthestatutoryaggravatingcircumstanceorcircumstancesoutweighanymitigatingcircumstances.Thedefendantconcedesthejurywasproperlyinstructedbythetrialcourt. Theformgiventothejuryfortherecordationofitsverdictstated:   X      PUNISHMENTOFDEATH   (1)We,theJury,unanimouslyfindthefollowinglistedstatutoryaggravatingcircumstanceorcircumstances:      ` (Herelistthestatutoryaggravatingcircumstanceorcircumstancessofound,whichshallbelimitedtothoseenumeratedbytheCourtforyourconsideration)   `    (WrittenbyJury)Heinous,Atrocious,Cruel,Torture (2)Wethejury,unanimouslyfindthattherearenomitigatingcircumstancessufficientlysubstantialtooutweighthestatutoryaggravatingcircumstanceorcircumstancessolistedabove. (3)Therefore,we,theJury,unanimouslyfindthatthepunishmentforthedefendant,PrestonCarter,shallbedeath.(Allofthejurorssignedhere)      X Thetwoverdictformsandverdictswerethesameinbothcases.  Whenthejuryreturneditsverdicts,theywereexaminedbythetrialcourt.Thetwoverdictswerethenreadintheirentirety.Inotherwords,theaboveverdictformwasreadinopencourt.   A.    Inthisjurisdiction,thefailuretomakeacontemporaneousobjectionwhenthedefendantisawaretherehasbeenanerrorintheproceedingsconstitutesawaiveroftheissue.Rule36(a),TennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure,providesthatnothingcontainedintherule shallbeconstruedasrequiringreliefbegrantedtoapartyresponsibleforanerrororwhofailedtotakewhateveractionwasreasonablyavailabletopreventornullifytheharmfuleffectofanerror.TheSupremeCourthasappliedthisruleincapitalcases. ~   ׀However,mostofthecaseshaveappliedtheruletoissuesraisedduringthedeterminationofguiltasopposedtothesentencingphaseofthetrial. InStatev.Brimmer,    ׀acasefactuallysimilartothiscase,thedefendantcomplainedthetrialcourtdidnotgiveaninstructionthataggravatingcircumstancesmustoutweighmitigatingcircumstancesbeyondareasonabledoubt.Thesupremecourtfoundthisissuewaswithoutmeritbecausethekillingoccurredpriortotheamendmenttothestatute.Inaddressingtheissueonthemerits,thesupremecourtsaid:   X    Normally,defendantsfailuretotakeanyactiontocallthisissuetothetrialcourtsattentionandhisactiveprocurementofaninstructionhenowclaimsiserroneouswouldprecludereviewonappeal.SeeT.R.A.P.3(e)and36(a).Inthepresentcase,however,ifdefendantwastriedunderthelawinapplicabletohiscase,hissubstantialrightsmayhavebeenaffected.Underthesecircumstancesweexerciseourdiscretiontoreviewthisissueinordertoinsuresubstantialjusticeisdone.SeeT.R.Cr.P.52(b).         X  Thefailuretoraisethisissueinthemotionforanewtrialalsoresultsinwaiveroftheissue.Rule3(e),TennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure,statesinpart:   X    [I]nallcasestriedbyajury,noissuepresentedforreviewshallbepredicateduponerrorintheadmissionorexclusionofevidence,juryinstructionsgrantedorrefused,misconductofjurors,partiesorcounsel,orotheractioncommittedoroccurringduringthetrialofthecase,orothergrounduponwhichanewtrialissought,unlessthesamewasspecificallystatedinamotionforanewtrial;otherwisesuchissueswillbetreatedatwaived.      X Thesupremecourthasappliedthisruleindeathpenaltycases.    ׀Again,theuseofthisrulehasbeenlimitedtoissuesoccurringduringtheguiltphaseoftheproceedings. Whilethisissuehasbeenwaived,thisCourtwillneverthelessaddressthisissueonitsmerits.      B.    Aspreviouslynoted,thetrialcourtcorrectlyinstructedthejuryonthelawitwastoapplyindeterminingwhethertheStateofTennesseehadmetitsburdenofproofontheaggravatingcircumstancesraisedbytheevidence,howthejurorsweretoconsidermitigatingcircumstancessubmittedbythedefendant,andhowthejurywastodeterminewhethertheaggravatingcircumstancesoutweighedthemitigatingcircumstances.Thejuryispresumedtofollowtheinstructionsgivenbythetrialcourtabsentprooftothecontrary.     Anyerrorinusingtheaforementionedjuryverdictformwasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.Consideringtheentirerecord,thiserrordidnotaffectthejuryverdict,anditdidnotresultinprejudicetothejudicialprocessorthedefendant.     Thisissueiswithoutmerit.   VIII. @ CONSTITUTIONALITYOFTHEDEATHPENALTY    Inhislastissue,theappellantmakesstandardattacksagainsttheconstitutionalityofthedeathpenaltyinTennessee.Theappellantacknowledgesthattheseclaimshaverepeatedlybeenrejected,butraisestheminordertopreservethemforlaterreview.Thesupremecourthasrepeatedlyupheldtheconstitutionalityofthedeathpenaltyinthefaceofsimilarchallenges.    ׀ Thisissueiswithoutmerit.@ CONCLUSION  ThisCourthasconsideredtheissuesraisedbythedefendantinconsiderabledetail.Basedupontheanalysisoftheissueshereinabovesetforth,itistheopinionofthisCourtthedeathsentencesshouldbeaffirmed. ThedeathsentenceshavebeenreviewedbythisCourtinthemannermandatedbyTenn.CodeAnn.3913206(c)(1).Thereportofthetrialcourthasbeenreviewed.ThisCourtisoftheopinionthesentenceswerenotimposedinanarbitrarymanner.Inaddition,acomparativeproportionalityreview,whichconsidersboththenatureofthecrimeandthedefendant,revealsthedeathsentences,inthecontextofthiscase,areneitherexcessivenordisproportionatetodeathsentencesimposedinsimilarcases.      ____________________________________      JOEB.JONES,PRESIDINGJUDGECONCUR:_____________________________________ DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE_____________________________________ JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE