ÿWPC\4 G# òUNý %K 0 (QU:yw@³4ó 0ª 0cÀU:#U:] 1m— 0c 0Jg 0T± 0^ 0hc U*Ë UJõ 0r? 0|± 0†- 0³ 1uC 0d¸ B U>9 w 0Dw Æ» AO 0DÐ 0@ D3T D/‡ B¶B)ÓU@ü<eDDCE AMˆÆÕ ›b¦\®3 {=¸¸"pp$Ñà&^±(ü+v~ -vÓ‰.˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡`"Arial Regular Y4™Z4š[4E\4™]4D^4V_4a4b4Ó€c4@1dÔ\@Ôô3|xc4(Z(2ÈL$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ô™¸ôXXÔÔ€ôºäôôô™¸Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("Y‘$Ô€XܨXXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular#4e37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;³¾$´´Ô24eÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô%ä2¼A`Arial³˜kIA`2WP TypographicSymbols2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ݃Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5,/.1Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd22'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd% Line 7 d ɸ·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT33337Border 1dd,/7Cþÿ << GÿÿLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€XÔó óÌò òÔ€¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ6 ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€4Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€4ÂÔÔ€ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€4ÔÔ€4XÔ- ù- RÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€In€reversing€the€death€sentence€and€remanding€the€case€to€the€trial€court,€the€€Supreme€CourtÏà0 àconcluded€that€the€admission€of€part€of€this€statement€by€the€appellant€was€not€harmless€error.€ÏConsequently,€only€the€admissible€section€was€read€into€evidence€by€Sergeant€Denton.€€Initially,ÏSergeant€Denton€read€the€transcript€of€the€statement€which€deleted€any€reference€to€BrettÏPatterson.€€Because,€however,€this€trial€pertained€to€sentencing€only,€and€the€guilt€of€both€theÏappellant€and€Patterson€had€already€been€determined,€the€court€allowed€the€Sergeant€to€return€toÏthe€witness€stand€and€relate€to€the€jury€the€unedited€portions€of€the€transcript€referring€toÏPatterson.Ì )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€As€an€initial€matter,€the€state€argues€that€several€issues€raised€on€appeal€have€been€waivedÏà0 àbecause€the€appellant€failed€to€timely€object,€T.R.A.P.€36(a),€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,Ï235€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),€or€raise€the€issue€in€the€motion€for€new€trial,€T.R.A.P.€3(e),€òòState€v.ÏBakeróó,€785€S.W.2d€132,€135€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€Because€of€the€qualitative€differenceÏbetween€death€and€other€sentences,€however,€our€Supreme€Court€has€normally€considered€theÏmerits€of€an€issue€even€if€the€appellant€did€not€contemporaneously€object€to€the€error€or€raise€theÏissue€in€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€805€(Tenn.€1994);€òòStateÏv.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67„68€(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€Strouthóó,€620€S.W.2d€467,€471€(Tenn.Ï1981).€€Accordingly,€we€will€consider€these€issues€on€their€merits.Ì qÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€State€notes,€with€which€we€agree,€that€although€the€trial€court€erroneously€instructed€theÏà0 àjury€under€the€new€language€rather€than€the€old€language€of€the€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€orÏcruel€aggravating€circumstance€(because€of€the€date€of€the€offense),€the€error€was€harmless€as€theÏinstruction€inured€to€the€benefit€of€the€appellant.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€03C01„9406„CR„00198€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€24,€1996),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó,€òòconcurring€in€results€onlyóó,€(Tenn.ÏJuly€1,€1996).€€ÌÌà àà àFurthermore,€the€1989€amendments€to€the€death€penalty€statute€mandate€that€the€juryÏà0 àmust€find€that€the€aggravating€circumstances€outweigh€the€mitigating€circumstances€ð ðbeyond€aÏreasonable€doubtðð€before€it€can€impose€the€death€penalty.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„203€(Supp.Ï1989).€€Prior€to€the€amendments,€however,€the€jury€simply€had€to€find€that€the€aggravatingÏcircumstances€outweighed€the€mitigating€circumstances.€€€ðð€39„13„203€(1982).€€In€the€case€beforeÏus,€the€trial€judge€erroneously€instructed€the€jury€under€the€new€law€rather€than€the€law€inÏexistence€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€ðð€39„11„112.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2dÏ908,€919€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€82€(Tenn.€1994).€€Since,€however,€theÏamendments€to€the€statute€create€a€higher€burden€of€proof,€and€thus€inure€to€the€benefit€of€theÏappellant,€we€believe€any€error€committed€by€the€trial€judge€was€merely€harmless.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòStateÏv.€Thompsonóó,€No.€03C01„9406„CR„00198,€Dickson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€24,€1996),Ïòòperm.€app.€deniedóó,€òòconcurring€in€results€onlyóó,€(Tenn.€1996).Ì ®Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€ðð€40„35„117€outlines€the€applicable€dates€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€€ForÏà0 àexample,€an€offense€committed€prior€to€July€1,€1982€shall€be€prosecuted€under€the€prior€law,Ïregardless€of€sentencing€considerations.Ì fÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Earlier€in€this€prosecutorððs€argument,€however,€the€appellant€did€voice€an€objection.€€TheÏà0 àprosecutor€made€several€statements€concerning€the€circumstances€of€the€crime,€which€theÏappellant€claimed€were€outside€the€scope€of€his€remarks€in€closing€and€thus€not€proper€matters€forÏrebuttal.€€The€prosecutor€stated€he€would€make€his€argument€relevant€to€appellantððs€remarks,€andÏthe€court€allowed€him€to€proceed.Ì ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€appellant€objected€to€the€introduction€of€the€statement,€but€his€objection€was€groundedÏupon€à0 àsomething€other€than€the€reference€to€the€prior€acquittal;€he€objected€because€the€statement€wasÏnot€an€exact€transcript€of€the€interview€which€was€conducted.Ì TÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Prior€to€the€1989€amendments,€the€trial€court€was€not€required€to€inform€the€jury€that€noÏà àà0 àdistinction€shall€be€made€between€statutory€and€specifically€requested€nonstatutoryÏmitigating€à àfactors.€€òòSeeóó€ðð€39„13„203(e)€(1982).€€The€judge€here€instructed€the€juryÏnot€to€distinguish€between€à àthe€two€types€of€factors.€€òòSeeóó€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1)€(Supp.Ï1995.).Ì òÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€No€execution€date€is€set€in€this€opinion.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„206(a)(1)Ïà0 àprovides€for€automatic€review€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€upon€affirmance€of€the€deathÏpenalty.€€If€the€sentence€of€death€is€upheld€by€the€Supreme€Court€on€review,€that€court€will€set€theÏexecution€date.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€)ŠÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ€<ÑÙ€,ÙßL€8;7;+'h|*ÿâ `€€Lß›à@ àò òIN€THE€TENNESSEE€COURTÏOF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ àJULY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌœSTATE›€OF€œTENNESSEE,›à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óAppellee,ò òà àà àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9506„CC„00164Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óVS.ò òà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àGIBSON€COUNTYÏà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(TRANSFERREDÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àFROM€MONTGOMERY€COUNTY)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌRONNIE€MICHAEL€CAUTHERN,à à)à àHONORABLE€DICK€JERMAN,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà àà àœ)à àó ó(Sentencing„Death€Penalty)ò ò›ÌÌó óÌœòòFor›€the€Appellantóóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€AppelleeóóÌÌHugh€Reid€Poland,€Jr.à àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ408€Franklin€Streetà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌClarksville,€TN€37040à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌRobert€T.€Batemanà àà àà àà àJohn€P.€CauleyÌ221€South€Third€Streetà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌClarksville,€TN€37040à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àClayburn€PeeplesÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à109€E.€First€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTrenton,€TN€38382ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€CarneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à204€Franklin€Street,€Suite€200Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àClarksville,€TN€37040ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSteve€GarrettÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à204€Franklin€Street,€Suite€200Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àClarksville,€TN€37040Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌÌœOPINION€FILED:€______________________________ÌÌDEATH€PENALTY€AFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLESÌJUDGE›ÌÌÌà@ àœòòÔ€„ÔOPINION›óóÌÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓÔ€ŠÔà àThe€original€trial€of€this€case€took€place€in€Montgomery€County.€€Judge€JohnÏH.€Peay€presided€over€the€trial€of€the€appellant€and€his€co„defendant,€BrettÏPatterson,€which€resulted€in€two€convictions€for€felony€murder,€one€conviction€for€firstÏdegree€burglary,€and€one€conviction€for€aggravated€rape€for€each€defendant.€€TheÏjury€sentenced€the€appellant€to€death.€€The€appellantððs€co„defendant€received€a€lifeÏsentence.€€On€direct€appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court,€the€appellantððs€convictionsÏwere€affirmed,€but€the€death€penalty€was€set€aside€and€the€case€was€remandedÏfor€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€778€S.W.2d€39€(Tenn.€1989).€ÏOn€remand,€Judge€Peay€granted€the€appellantððs€motion€to€transfer€the€case€out€ofÏMontgomery€County.€€The€new€sentencing€hearing€was€held€in€Gibson€County.ÌÌò òà àó óUpon€the€sentencing€hearing€in€Gibson€County,€the€appellant€received€oneÏlife€sentence€and€one€death€sentence€for€his€two€murder€convictions.€€As€to€theÍdeath€sentence,€the€jury€found€one€aggravating€circumstance,€that€the€murder€wasÏespecially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physicalÏabuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5).€ÏThe€jury€further€found€that€the€aggravating€circumstance€outweighed€the€evidence€ofÏmitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà àIn€this€appeal,€the€appellant€raises€numerous€issues€attacking€the€validity€ofÏthe€death€sentence€imposed.€Having€reviewed€the€various€claims,€we€find€noÏreversible€error€and€thus€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìò òÌà@ àBACKGROUNDó óÌà àœBecause€this€appeal›€œpertains›€œonly€to›€the€new€sentencing€œhearing€that›€wasÏordered€by€the€Supreme€Court,€the€evidence€introduced€primarily€addresses€theÏapplicability€of€the€aggravating€and€mitigating€circumstances.€€In€short,€theÏappellant€and€his€co„defendant,€Brett€Patterson,€broke€into€the€residence€of€PatrickÏand€Rosemary€Smith€with€the€apparent€intention€of€stealing€money.€€Once€insideÏthe€house,€however,€the€two€men€strangled€Mr.€Smith€and€raped€and€strangled€hisÏwife.€€They€also€stole€several€items€from€the€Smithsðð€residence,€including€a€purse,Ïcredit€cards,€checks,€clothing,€and€jewelry.€€The€two€individuals€were€ultimatelyÏapprehended€when€the€police€received€a€tip€from€an€acquaintance€of€the€twoÏdefendants.€€For€a€more€detailed€œdescription€of›€the€crimes,€see€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,Í778€S.W.2d€39€(Tenn.€œ1989),›€œand€òòState€v.€Brett€Pattersonóó,€No.€88„245„3,ÏMontgomery€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Dec.€8,€1989).€›€The€deathÏsentence€imposed€on€remand€pertained€to€the€killing€of€Mrs.€œSmith.ÌÌà àUpon€answering€a€call€on€January€9,€1987,€of€a€possible€burglary€inÏprogress,€Officer€John€Robert€Nichols€of€the€Clarksville€Police€Department€arrived€atÏthe€Smithsðð€residence€in€Clarksville,€Tennessee.€€The€back€door€of€the€houseÏappeared€to€have€been€kicked€open€and€the€window€on€the€door€was€shattered.€ÏOfficer€Nichols€testified€that€the€basement€of€the€house€looked€ransacked.€€WhenÏhe€went€upstairs€to€further€inspect€the€premises,€he€found€€the€nude€body€of€aÏwoman›€lying€œon›€the€floor€in€the€first€bedroom€he€came€upon.€€A€scarf€was€tiedÏaround€the€womanððs€neck€with€a€vase€entwined€within€the€scarf€as€sort€of€aÏtourniquet.€€œIn›€the€back€bedroom,€he€found€œthe€body€of€a›€man€kneeling€against€theÏbed€with€his€face€on€the€mattress.€€Officer€Nichols€testified€that€the€discolorationÏaround€the€manððs€neck€indicated€that€he€might€have€been€strangled.€€OfficerÏNichols€further€testified€that€the€room€was€in€disarray:€€the€bed€frame€was€broken,Ïthe€mattress€was€lying€on€the€floor,€and€furniture€had€been€moved.€ÌÌà àDr.€Charles€Harlan,€Chief€Medical€Examiner€for€the€State€of€Tennessee,Ïperformed€the€autopsies€on€the€two€victims.€€He€concluded€that€both€victims€diedÏas€a€result€of€ligature€strangulations.€€He€opined€that€the€victims€could€have€diedÍthree€to€six€minutes€after€the€initiation€of€the€strangulation,€but€that€they€may€haveÏbeen€rendered€unconscious€as€œquickly›€as€thirty€œseconds€into›€the€acts.€€Dr.€HarlanÏtestified€that€probably€more€than€eleven€pounds€per€square€inch€of€pressure€wasÏapplied€to€Mr.€Smithððs€neck,€thereby€causing€death€by€halting€the€blood€supply€toÏthe€brain.€€Dr.€Harlan€found€multiple€abrasions,€lacerations,€and€contusions€on€theÏœmale€victimððs›€neck,€lower€lip,€and€left€great€toe.€€Some€of€the€abrasions€on€the€neck,Ïhe€indicated,€could€have€been€caused€by€the€victimððs€finger€nails€as€he€grabbed€atÏhis€neck.€€Based€upon€the€fracture€of€the€thyroid€cartilage€in€Mrs.€Smithððs€neck,€Dr.ÏHarlan€concluded€that€a€force€greater€than€thirty„four€pounds€per€square€inchÏcaused€her€death.€€Dr.€Harlan€could€not€determine,€however,€whether€either€victimÏsuffered€repeated€strangulations.ÌÌà àDetective€Erle€Crockarell€of€the€Clarksville€Police€Department€videotaped€theÏcrime€scene.€€The€tape,€minus€portions€which€were€not€relevant€to€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€was€shown€to€the€jury€with€the€sound€turned€off.€€The€defenseÏœobjected€to›€the€showing€of€those€segments€depicting€the€officers€moving€the€bodiesÏin€order€to€examine€their€undersides.€€The€court,€noting€the€objection,€opined€thatÏthose€scenes€were€relevant€to€the€establishment€of€the€lone€aggravator.€€TheÏfollowing€is€a€summation€of€the€œportion€of€the€tape›€that€was€œshown:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€officer€walks€through€the€opened€back€door,€which€has€aÍshattered€window.€€One€of€the€officers€is€shown€dusting€the€outline€ofÏa€shoe€print€on€the€door€near€the€knob.€€The€basement€looks€inÏdisarray:€desk€drawers€opened€and€papers€strewn€about,€closetsÏopened.€€Upstairs,€the€furniture€drawers€in€the€living€room€are€openedÏand€various€things€are€spread€about€the€floor.€€There€is€a€hammer€onÏthe€floor€in€one€of€the€sitting€rooms€and€a€microwave€on€the€coffeeÏtable.€€The€house€appears€to€be€rather€neat€in€other€respects.ÌÌà8 àà àIn€the€hallway€leading€to€the€bedrooms,€there€are€what€appearÏto€be€labels€from€the€tops€of€beverage€bottles.€€In€the€first€bedroom€onÏthe€right,€a€womanððs€nude€body€is€lying€face€down€on€the€floor€with€aÏscarf€tied€around€her€neck.€€A€vase€is€entwined€within€the€scarf.€€AÏnightgown€and€undergarments€are€lying€on€the€floor€near€the€body.€ÏAlso€on€the€floor€are€flowers€that€appear€to€have€come€from€the€vase.€ÏThe€drawers€on€the€dresser€are€opened,€the€closet€door€is€openedÏand€items€are€thrown€about,€and€the€bed€cover€is€disheveled.ÌÌà8 àà àIn€the€back€bedroom,€a€manððs€body€is€shown€kneeling€againstÏthe€bed€with€his€face€on€the€mattress.€€His€body€is€wrapped€in€theÏbed€cover.€€This€bedroom€also€appears€to€be€in€disarray:€the€bedÏframe€is€off€its€hinges€and€the€mattress€is€lying€flush€against€the€floor,Ïthe€dresser€and€desk€drawers€and€the€closet€doors€are€opened,€andÏitems€are€strewn€about€the€floor.€€The€camera€captures€a€close„up€onÏthe€manððs€hands€and€feet,€which€are€bluish€in€color.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€officers€remove€the€covers€from€the€man€and€flip€his€bodyÏover.€€The€skin€on€the€front€of€his€body€is€blue.€€Around€his€neck€areÏabrasion€marks,€and€his€lips€are€bloodied.€€There€is€a€blood€stain€onÏthe€bed€where€his€face€was€lying.€€The€video€shows€the€officersÏexamining€the€manððs€arms€and€legs,€and€also€shows€close„ups€of€hisÏface€and€neck.€€The€video€then€shows€the€officers€cutting€the€vase€outÏof€the€scarf€and€removing€the€scarf€from€around€the€womanððs€neck.€ÏThe€officers€flip€over€the€woman€as€well,€and€her€skin€and€lips€alsoÏhave€a€bluish€tint.€€While€the€officers€are€moving€the€bodies,€it€isÏobvious€that€rigor€mortis€has€already€occurred.ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àAfter€the€video€was€shown€to€the€jury,€Detective€Crockarell€elaborated€as€toÏwhat€he€observed.€€He€stated€that€the€lock€mechanism€on€the€back€door€wasÏbroken.€€Also,€the€phone€line€on€the€outside€of€the€house€was€cut.€€Two€bottleÍcaps€from€ð ðBartles€and€Jamesðð€wine€coolers€were€found€on€the€floor€in€the€hallwayÏnext€to€the€front€bedroom.€€In€the€back€bedroom,€on€each€side€of€the€bed,€theyÏnoticed€eyeglasses€on€the€nightstands€and€house€slippers€on€the€floor.€€TwoÏbuttons€from€the€nightgown€in€the€front€bedroom€were€torn€off;€one€was€found€onÏthe€floor€and€the€other€on€the€bed.€€They€noticed€a€semi„clear€liquid€in€the€frontÏbedroom€on€the€bed€cover€and€on€the€floor€next€to€the€woman.€€After€they€removedÏthe€scarf,€they€determined€that€it€was€indented€about€1/8€inch€into€the€womanððsÏneck.€€He€also€testified€that€the€width€of€the€strangulation€mark€around€the€manððsÏneck€was€about€1/16€inch€wide.€€Detective€Crockarell€stated€that€they€found€theÏappellantððs€name€on€a€piece€of€paper€inside€the€residence.ÌÌà àDetective€Crockarell€further€testified€that€on€January€11€or€12,€1987,€heÏreceived€instructions€to€go€to€112€Faith€Drive€in€Clarksville€for€a€development€in€theÏcase.€€The€building€at€this€address€was€a€duplex,€one€side€being€112€Faith€DriveÏand€the€other€114€Faith€Drive.€€Upon€arrival,€Detective€Crockarell€observed€from€aÏdistance€the€appellant,€Brett€Patterson€and€another€individual€working€on€a€greyÏCamaro€in€the€yard€(the€Detective€stated€that€he€had€dealings€with€the€appellantÏprior€to€this€encounter).€€After€about€twenty€minutes,€Detective€Crockarell€andÏanother€officer€detained€the€three€men€until€a€search€warrant€was€obtained.€€TheyÏchecked€the€men€for€weapons€and€secured€the€area€so€no€one€could€leave.€ÏDuring€the€pat„down€for€weapons,€they€found€a€.38€caliber€handgun€inside€the€car.ÌÌà àDetective€Steve€Poston€of€the€Clarksville€Police€Department€executed€theÏsearch€warrant€on€the€Faith€Drive€residences.€€112€Faith€Drive€was€in€BrettÏPattersonððs€name€and€114€was€in€Eric€Barbeeððs€name.€€Detective€Poston€testifiedÏthat€the€wall€between€112€and€114€Faith€Drive€had€been€knocked€out,€creating€aÏwalkway€through€the€two€residences.€€In€the€Camaro,€they€found€checks,€creditÏcards,€and€photo€IDs€bearing€the€victimsðð€names,€tools,€the€appellantððs€blackÍleather€jacket€with€some€of€the€Smithsðð€credit€cards€and€$150€in€cash€in€the€pocket,Ïa€stocking€cap,€black€gloves,€and€880€military€cord.€€Inside€the€residence€at€112ÏFaith€Drive,€the€officers€found€two€ski€masks,€black€gloves,€a€grey€Membersðð€OnlyÏjacket€with€880€military€cord€in€the€pocket,€a€.45€automatic€handgun,€a€black€purseÏcontaining€Mrs.€Smithððs€vehicle€registration,€Mr.€Smithððs€receipt€book€with€a€receiptÏmade€out€to€the€appellant,€and€the€Smithsðð€car€and€house€keys.€€Inside€114,€theyÏfound€a€tote€bag€with€a€flashlight€and€a€cold€weather€military€mask.ÌÌà àSergeant€Charles€Denton€interviewed€the€appellant€two€times€after€theÏmurders.€€The€first€interview€on€January€12,€1987,€was€an€oral€interview€which€wasÏreduced€to€writing€by€the€Sergeant€afterwards.€€The€appellant€apparently€refusedÏto€give€a€written€statement.€€As€the€appellant€answered€the€Sergeantððs€questions,Ïthe€Sergeant€wrote€the€answers€on€a€piece€of€paper.€€Sergeant€Denton€testifiedÏthat€he€advised€the€appellant€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€and€that€the€appellant€waivedÏthe€same.€€Furthermore,€the€appellant€reviewed€what€the€Sergeant€wrote€andÏsigned€the€statement.€€The€following€is€a€summation€of€that€statement,€which€wasÏread€into€evidence€by€Sergeant€Denton:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€appellant€indicated€that€he€first€knew€about€the€propertyÏtaken€in€the€burglary€when€Patterson€told€him.€€He€said€he€read€aboutÏthe€burglary€in€the€paper€but€didnððt€know€whose€names€were€on€theÏchecks€and€credit€cards.€€The€appellant€stated€that€he€didnððt€see€theÏchecks€or€credit€cards€in€the€trunk€of€the€Camaro€until€the€morning€ofÏJanuary€12.€€He€said€he€knew€nothing€about€a€VCR.€€The€appellantÏtold€the€officer€he€did€not€break€into€the€Smithsðð€house€or€tell€anyoneÏany€information€about€the€Smithsðð€house.€€He€further€stated€that€heÏknew€Patterson€broke€into€the€house.€€Patterson€told€him€he€broke€inÏthe€house,€but€didnððt€mention€anything€about€any€murders.€€TheÏappellant€stated€that€Patterson€didnððt€give€him€anything€from€theÏrobbery.€€Joe€Denning€was€with€Patterson€on€the€night€of€the€8th.€ÏThe€appellant€mentioned€he€owned€a€Toyota.€€He€stated€he€did€notÏknow€who€committed€the€robbery€at€the€Hornbuckle€66,€but€indicatedÍthat€Denning€and€Patterson€committed€the€burglary€of€the€SmithsððÏplace.€€(Defense€counsel€objected€to€the€reference€of€the€HornbuckleÏrobbery,€but€the€objection€was€overruled).€€The€appellant€said€heÏknew€the€stolen€items€were€in€the€trunk€of€the€Camaro€when€the€policeÏcame€to€112€Faith€on€January€12.€€He€stated€he€did€not€own€aÏmasonððs€hammer.€€The€appellant€further€stated€that€he€did€not€tellÏPatterson€about€a€robbery€at€the€Hornbuckle€66.ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àThe€second€interview,€which€was€conducted€on€January€13,€1987,€wasÏtaped€by€Sergeant€Denton.€€Officer€Joe€Griffy€was€also€present€during€theÏinterview.€€After€the€appellant€was€advised€of€his€rights,€he€indicated€to€the€officersÏthat€his€attorney€told€him€not€to€talk€unless€he€was€present.€€The€officers€informedÏthe€appellant€he€could€waive€his€rights€and€talk€nonetheless,€and€the€appellantÏsaid,€ð ðO.K.ðð€€During€the€initial€appeal€of€this€cause,€however,€the€tape€recording€ofÏthe€statement€was€lost.€€A€transcription€of€the€tape€recording€exists,€and€this€wasÏread€into€evidence€by€Sergeant€Denton€during€the€hearing€on€remand.× ƒ= ××  ×€€TheÏfollowing€is€a€summation€of€that€transcript:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€appellant€stated€that€Mrs.€Smith€told€him€to€come€by€theÏhouse€about€10:30€or€11:00€p.m.€that€night.€€He€and€Brett€PattersonÏrode€in€the€Camaro€to€the€Smithsðð€residence.€€She€told€him€to€go€to€theÏback€door,€but€it€was€locked.€€When€the€appellant€started€to€leave,ÏPatterson€tried€to€kick€the€door,€but€it€still€wouldnððt€open.€€PattersonÏbroke€the€window€on€the€door€and€reached€in€and€opened€the€doorÏfrom€the€inside.€€He€walked€in€and€looked€around€with€a€flashlight.€ÏThe€appellant€was€still€outside€when€Patterson€came€back€out€andÍcut€the€phone€lines€on€the€outside€of€the€house.ÌÌà8 àà àThey€went€upstairs€to€the€back€bedroom€where€the€SmithsÏwere€sleeping.€€Mr.€Smith€sat€up€and€yelled,€ð ðwho€is€it?ðð€€PattersonÏgrabbed€Mr.€Smith,€flipped€him€over,€and€put€a€pillow€over€his€head.€ÏMr.€Smith€was€yelling€and€Mrs.€Smith€tried€to€get€out€of€the€bed.€€TheÏappellant€told€Mrs.€Smith€to€go€hide€in€the€closet€in€the€front€bedroom.€ÏPatterson€and€Mr.€Smith€were€fighting.€€The€appellant€tried€to€use€theÏphone€but€didnððt€realize€it€was€out.€€He€went€downstairs€and€when€heÏcame€back€up,€Mr.€Smith€was€dead.€€Patterson€grabbed€Mrs.€SmithÏas€she€was€coming€back€down€the€hallway€and€they€went€in€theÏfront€bedroom.€€The€appellant€said€Mrs.€Smith€took€her€clothes€offÏvoluntarily.€€She€and€Patterson€did€something€in€the€bedroom€and€sheÏcame€out€and€told€the€appellant€she€was€sorry.€€The€appellant€saidÏhe€did€not€rape€her.ÌÌà8 àà àPatterson€took€a€rope€out€of€his€pocket€and€went€to€the€backÏbedroom€and€tied€it€around€Mr.€Smithððs€neck.€€Patterson€then€came€toÏthe€front€bedroom€and€was€going€to€choke€Mrs.€Smith.€€The€appellantÏasked€him€not€to,€but€he€did€it€anyway.€€He€tied€a€scarf€around€herÏneck€but€she€was€still€alive€so€he€put€a€ball€or€something€in€the€scarfÏand€twisted€it€around€her€neck.€€They€left€the€house,€but€the€appellantÏsaid€they€didnððt€take€anything.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€entire€incident€took€place€in€less€than€thirty€minutes.€€TheyÏused€wire€cutters€from€the€appellantððs€tool€box€to€cut€the€telephoneÏwires.€€The€appellant€said€he€saw€Mrs.€Smith€the€night€before€aboutÏ7:00€p.m.€€He€said€she€was€at€the€Faith€Drive€residence€and€thenÏthey€went€out€to€eat.€€The€appellant€claimed€he€had€been€seeing€Mrs.ÏSmith€off€and€on€for€some€time€and€had€sex€with€her€twice€before.€€HeÏstated€that€he€had€done€some€work€on€the€Smithsðð€Mercedes.€€Mrs.ÏSmith€would€bring€it€by€his€place€and€drop€it€off;€he€never€picked€it€upÏat€their€place.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€appellant€stated€he€did€not€wear€gloves€or€a€ski€mask€theÏnight€of€the€murders.€€The€appellant€stated€that€Mrs.€Smith€consentedÏto€having€sex€with€Patterson€that€night.€€She€took€her€clothes€off€inÏfront€of€them€and€laid€down€on€the€bed€in€the€center€bedroom.€€SheÏtold€the€appellant€she€was€sorry,€but€she€didnððt€ask€about€herÏhusband.€€The€appellant€said€that€Patterson€drank€two€wine€coolers.€ÏThe€appellant€stated€that€he€did€not€rape€Mrs.€Smith.€€He€furtherÍstated€that€he€didnððt€remove€anything€from€the€house€but€that€he€didnððtÏknow€if€Patterson€did€or€not.€€ÌÌà8 àà àThe€appellant€admitted€that€he€knew€that€credit€cards€and€aÏgrey€Membersðð€Only€jacket€were€taken.€€He€said€he€did€not€know€if€aÏVCR€was€taken.€€The€appellant€denied€taking€a€watch€and€ring€fromÏthe€house€but€stated€that€he€gave€a€watch€and€ring€to€ð ðJackieððÏ(Jaqueline€Pigue)€the€next€day.€€He€also€denied€going€to€the€SmithsððÏhouse€to€steal€anything;€he€went€there€because€Mrs.€Smith€invitedÏhim.€€The€appellant€stated€that€nothing€in€the€house€was€disturbedÏwhen€he€left,€i.e.,€dresser€drawers€or€closet€doors€were€not€opened.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€appellant€stated€they€took€a€purse€from€the€house.€ÏPatterson€brought€a€short€rope€with€him,€but€the€appellant€deniedÏhaving€any€rope.€€The€appellant€also€denied€touching€either€of€theÏvictims.€€The€appellant€stated€Mr.€Smith€was€not€supposed€to€beÏthere.€€The€appellant€also€stated€that€Mrs.€Smith€told€him€she€wasÏgoing€to€get€rid€of€her€husband€no€matter€what€it€took.€€The€appellantÏsaid€he€didnððt€strangle€either€victim.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€appellant€stated€he€had€been€to€the€Smithsðð€once€before€toÏpick€up€a€check€but€never€went€inside€the€house.€€The€appellantÏknew€the€Smiths€for€no€more€than€a€year.€€Both€of€them€had€been€toÏhis€place€before.€€He€saw€them€once€every€two€or€three€months.€€Mrs.ÏSmith€didnððt€offer€any€resistance€that€night;€she€gave€sex€willingly€toÏboth€of€them€(even€though€earlier€in€his€statement€he€denied€havingÏsex€with€her).€€While€Patterson€strangled€Mr.€Smith,€the€appellant€wasÏhiding€Mrs.€Smith€in€the€closet€and€running€out€of€the€house.€€He€wentÏto€the€car€to€leave.€€He€heard€her€scream€so€he€came€back€inside.€€ÌÌà8 àà àThe€appellant€doesnððt€know€why€he€followed€Patterson€into€theÏhouse€after€he€broke€the€back€door,€but€he€admitted€he€could€have€runÏaway.€€Since€Patterson€drove€the€Camaro€that€night,€the€appellant€didÏnot€have€the€keys.€€He€saw€Patterson€and€Mr.€Smith€fighting€and€heÏran€to€the€phone€near€the€kitchen.€€The€appellant€stated€his€fingerprintsÏshould€be€on€the€phone.€€When€they€left€the€house,€the€appellantÏstated€that€Patterson€told€him€the€Smiths€were€dead.€€He€didnððt€call€theÏpolice€because€he€knew€he€would€be€a€prime€suspect.€€TheÏappellant€said€he€considered€himself€an€accessory€to€murder.ÌÌÓ€ÓÌÓÓà àKaren€Rivetna,€Mrs.€Smithððs€sister,€testified€that€she€witnessed€the€appellantÏhelp€Mr.€Smith€connect€a€VCR€to€a€television€in€the€basement€of€the€SmithsððÏhouse.€€She€also€testified€that€she€once€rode€with€the€Smiths€to€the€appellantððsÏplace€in€order€to€drop€off€one€of€their€cars€on€which€the€appellant€was€going€toÏwork.€€In€addition,€Ms.€Rivetna€identified€for€the€court€Mrs.€Smithððs€watch€andÏwedding€ring,€as€well€as€Mr.€Smithððs€grey€Membersðð€Only€jacket.ÌÌà àJaqueline€Pigue€testified€that€she€and€the€appellant€dated€for€a€while€back€inÏ1987.€€She€stated€that€she€had€been€seeing€the€appellant€for€about€a€monthÏbefore€the€murders€occurred.€€She€also€stated€that€she€met€Brett€Patterson€aboutÏtwo€weeks€before€the€murders.€€Ms.€Pigue€testified€that€she€got€off€work€aroundÏ9:30€p.m.€the€night€of€the€murders,€and€met€the€appellant€and€Patterson€at€a€localÏArbyððs€before€heading€to€her€night€job€as€bartender€at€RockVegas.€€She€indicatedÏthat€the€two€men€appeared€to€be€on€acid€because€ð ð[t]hey€werenððt€being€the€sameÏas€they€always€were.€€Usually,€they€were€very€happy€go„lucky.€€They€were€beingÏvery€solemn€and€being€very€quiet.ðð€€She€also€testified€that€the€appellant€told€her€heÏhad€taken€acid€earlier€in€the€week.€€According€to€Ms.€Pigue,€Patterson€left€in€theÏCamaro€before€the€appellant€and€her;€she€and€the€appellant€left€in€her€car.€€TheÏappellant€was€wearing€a€black€leather€jacket€and€boots€when€she€saw€him€thatÏnight.ÌÌà àÇà àMs.€Pigue€testified€that€the€day€after€the€murders€the€appellant€gave€her€aÏwatch€and€wedding€ring€to€hold€for€him€so€they€would€not€get€lost.€€The€appellantÏtold€her€that€someone€owed€him€money€and€he€was€keeping€the€watch€and€ringÏas€collateral.€€He€also€told€her€that€he€was€moving€out€of€town.€€Ms.€Pigue€testifiedÏthat€the€appellant€was€in€a€ð ðhappy€go„luckyðð€type€of€mood€when€he€gave€her€theÏwatch€and€ring.€€He€did€not€mention€anything€about€the€murders.€€Ms.€Pigue€furtherÏtestified€that€she€saw€the€appellantððs€photo€associated€with€a€news€report€aboutÏthe€Smith€murders€on€the€following€Monday€night.€€She€was€taken€aback€becauseÏshe€did€not€believe€the€appellant€could€do€such€a€thing.€€After€talking€with€herÏparents€the€next€morning,€Ms.€Pigue€gave€to€the€police€the€items€which€which€theÏappellant€had€given€her.ÌÌà àMs.€Pigue€also€testified€that€the€appellant€had€written€her€two€letters€about€aÏmonth€after€his€conviction.€€She€only€read€the€first€one,€but€she€destroyed€both€ofÏthem.€€The€one€she€read€did€not€mention€anything€about€the€crimes€or€hisÏconviction;€the€appellant€just€asked€how€she€was€doing.€€She€mentioned€that€thereÏwere€ð ðsmiley€facesðð€on€the€letter.ÌÌà àJoseph€Frederick€Denning,€a€high€school€friend€of€the€appellantððs,€testifiedÏthat€about€a€week€before€the€murders,€the€appellant€inquired€about€buying€aÏhandgun.€€Denning€took€the€appellant€and€Patterson€to€Nashville€to€purchase€aÍ.45€handgun€from€an€acquaintance€of€his.€€The€appellant€gave€Denning€$50.00,Ïwhich€Denning€gave€to€his€acquaintance,€and€the€acquaintance€was€going€toÏcome€to€Clarksville€on€January€10,€1987,€to€collect€the€remaining€$200.00.€€DenningÏalso€testified€that€the€appellant€bought€a€.38€caliber€handgun€from€him€the€previousÏyear.ÌÌà àDenning€testified€that€the€appellant€and€Patterson€came€to€his€residenceÏaround€3:00€a.m.€on€January€9,€1987.€€He€stated€that€both€men€were€dressedÏnicely,€and€he€said€the€appellant€was€hyperactive.€€The€appellant€told€DenningÏthat€his€girlfriend€bought€him€the€clothes€he€was€wearing.€€The€men€asked€DenningÏto€go€out€with€them,€but€Denning€told€them€he€was€going€to€sleep.€€Denning€furtherÏtestified€that€the€appellant€was€at€his€place€the€next€morning€when€he€awoke.€ÏThe€two€of€them€then€drove€over€and€picked€up€Patterson.€€Denning€testified€thatÏon€the€way€back€to€his€place,€the€appellant€showed€him€some€credit€cards,€aÏcheckbook,€a€watch€and€ring,€and€asked€him€if€he€knew€how€to€use€stolen€creditÏcards.€€Denning€stated€that€the€Smithsðð€name€was€on€the€credit€cards.€€TheÏappellant€told€him€he€was€going€to€give€the€watch€and€ring€to€his€girlfriend.€ÏDenning€testified€that€Patterson€told€him€something€to€the€effect€that€he€and€theÏappellant€already€killed€two€people€and€killing€one€more€would€not€matter.ÌÌà àDenning€testified€that€the€appellant€again€came€to€his€place€January€10,Í1987.€€The€appellant€showed€Denning€a€newspaper€article€about€the€murders€andÏsaid€ð ðhe€was€involved€with€the€killings€and€that€he€was€going€to€be€famous€andÏthat€they€wouldnððt€catch€him€alive€if€they€tried€to€catch€him.ðð€€The€appellant€told€himÏthat€he€tied€a€scarf€around€Mrs.€Smithððs€neck,€but€since€he€did€not€have€enoughÏstrength€to€kill€her,€he€used€a€vase€to€help€tighten€the€scarf.€€The€appellant€also€toldÏDenning€that€he€raped€the€woman€and€poured€ð ðBartles€and€Jamesðð€wine€coolersÏall€over€her.€€The€appellant€informed€Denning€that€he€cut€the€phone€lines€on€theÏoutside€of€the€house,€broke€the€window€in€the€back€door,€and€went€upstairs€andÏshined€a€flashlight€in€the€Smithsðð€faces.€€The€appellant€said€he€tried€to€kill€Mrs.ÏSmith€but€could€not,€so€he€gathered€stuff€to€steal€and€put€it€next€to€the€back€door.€ÏDenning€testified€that€the€appellant€told€him€he€and€Patterson€had€rope,€a€penlight,Ïand€guns€with€them€during€the€crimes.€€Denning€also€testified€that€he€saw€skiÏmasks€and€gloves€at€Pattersonððs€residence.ÌÌà àDenning€stated€that€the€appellant€was€acting€ð ðreal€excitedðð€about€theÏmurders€and€about€being€famous.€€Denning€testified€that€Patterson€said€ð ðhe€had€toÏfinish€the€job€[strangling€Mrs.€Smith]€for€Ronnie€because€Ronnie€.€.€.€didnððt€have€theÏstrength€to€do€it.ðð€€Patterson€also€told€Denning€that€he€killed€Mr.€Smith.€€Finally,ÏDenning€testified€that€he€was€offered€immunity€on€other€unrelated€matters€inÏexchange€for€his€testimony€in€this€case.ÌÌà àJames€Phillips€Andrews,€a€roommate€of€Joe€Denning€in€January€of€1987,Ïtestified€that€he€met€the€appellant€about€a€month€before€the€murders.€€He€statedÏthat€the€appellant€and€Brett€Patterson€stopped€by€their€place€every€other€day€or€soÏto€visit.€€Andrews€testified€that€the€appellant€and€Patterson€came€by€his€residenceÏduring€the€early€morning€hours€of€January€9,€1987,€but€that€they€did€not€stay€long.€€Ìà àAndrews€further€testified€that€the€appellant€came€to€his€residence€later€thatÏsame€evening.€€The€appellant,€Denning€and€Andrews€were€sitting€aroundÏwatching€television€when€a€report€about€reward€money€for€the€Smith€murders€wasÏbroadcast.€€Andrews€mentioned€to€the€others€he€wish€he€knew€who€killed€theÏcouple€so€he€could€get€the€money.€€The€appellant€told€Andrews€and€Denning€thatÏhe€was€the€one.€€The€appellant€told€them€some€of€the€details€about€the€incident,Ïhow€they€broke€into€the€house€of€this€couple€for€which€he€had€done€some€work,Ïwent€to€the€master€bedroom,€told€the€woman€to€get€into€the€closet,€strangled€theÏman,€and€then€raped€the€woman.€€The€appellant€stated€that€he€stole€a€VCRÏ(which€the€appellant€said€he€gave€to€his€father),€credit€cards,€and€a€wedding€ring.€ÏAndrews€also€testified€that€the€appellant€informed€him€he€wore€gloves€during€theÏincident.€€Andrews€testified€that€the€appellant€acted€ð ðproudðð€about€what€he€did;€ð ð[t]oÏhim,€it€was€like€a€great€trophy.ðð€€Andrews€admitted€that€in€his€statement€to€theÏpolice,€he€referred€more€to€ð ðtheyðð€or€ð ðthemðð€rather€than€ð ðheðð€when€relating€what€theÏappellant€had€told€him€in€regards€to€Patterson€and€his€involvement€in€the€incident.€ÏFinally,€Andrews€stated€that€the€appellant€threatened€to€kill€him€if€he€repeatedÍanything€the€appellant€told€him.ÌÌà àCharles€Tracy,€a€teacher€at€the€Department€of€Correction,€testified€on€behalfÏof€the€appellant.€€He€testified€that€the€appellant€was€one€of€his€aides,€and€that€theÏappellant€obtained€his€GED€while€in€prison.€€According€to€Tracy,€the€appellantÏworks€well€with€people,€has€good€communication€skills,€is€acceptable€toÏsupervision,€and€maintains€good€personal€hygiene.€€Tracy€testified€that€theÏappellant€tutors€others€in€gaining€their€GED€and€assists€in€grading€papers.€€A€letterÏof€appreciation€to€the€appellant€signed€by€Tracy€was€introduced€into€evidence.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€testified€on€his€own€behalf.€€He€stated€that€he€was€born€onÏSeptember€5,€1967,€and€adopted€and€raised€by€his€maternal€grandmother€andÏstep€grandfather.€€He€never€saw€his€natural€father€and€only€remembers€seeing€hisÏnatural€mother€several€times.€€He€testified€that€he€did€not€learn€until€age€fifteen€thatÏhis€grandmother€adopted€him.€€The€appellant€dropped€out€of€school€in€the€eleventhÏgrade€to€help€care€for€his€grandmother,€who€suffered€from€Parkinsonððs€disease,€soÏhis€step€grandfather€could€work€outside€the€home.€€The€appellant€testified€that€he€Çworked€on€automobiles€as€a€hobby,€and€was€employed€in€a€garage€until€ageÏeighteen.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€was€married€and€divorced,€and€has€a€son€from€that€marriage.€ÏHis€son,€eight€at€the€time€of€resentencing,€visits€the€appellant€in€prison€every€threeÏmonths€or€so.€€The€appellant€testified€that€he€has€remarried€since€he€has€beenÏincarcerated.€€He€received€his€GED€in€1991,€and€also€obtained€certification€as€aÏlegal€assistant/paralegal€in€1989,€both€while€in€prison.€€The€appellant€described€hisÏduties€as€a€teacherððs€aide,€and€testified€about€a€letter€of€appreciation€from€theÏteacher€and€from€a€correctional€officer,€and€approving€remarks€by€the€review€board.€ÏThe€appellant€introduced€greeting€cards€which€he€creates€and€sells€in€prison.€ÏFinally,€the€appellant€testified€that€he€corresponds€regularly€with€doctors,€healthÏdepartment€officials,€insurance€companies,€and€rental€agencies€concerning€hisÏgrandmotherððs€condition€and€situation.ÌÌà àBefore€the€appellant€rested,€the€trial€judge€informed€the€jury€that€BrettÏPatterson€received€a€life€sentence€for€his€two€first€degree€murder€convictions.ÌÌò òà@ àSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó ó× ƒ> ××  ×Ìà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€evidence€introduced€at€the€re„sentencingÏhearing€was€insufficient€to€satisfy€the€application€of€the€sole€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€that€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel.€ÏSpecifically,€the€appellant€relies€on€two€factors€in€support€of€his€argument:€(1)Ïevidence€that€the€victim€lost€consciousness€thirty€seconds€into€the€act,€and€(2)€theÏfact€that€the€appellant€was€not€the€one€who€actually€killed€the€victim.€€The€stateÏargues€in€response€that€the€evidence€fully€supports€the€juryððs€verdict.€€The€fact€thatÏPatterson€received€a€lesser€sentence,€according€to€the€state,€does€not€weigh€intoÏthe€sufficiency€determination.ÌÌà àò ò(1).ó ó€€The€evidence€presented€during€the€re„sentencing€hearing€in€this€caseÏshows€that€the€two€victims€died€as€a€result€of€ligature€strangulation.€€The€force€ofÏpressure€applied€to€the€neck€of€Mr.€Smith€was€probably€greater€than€elevenÏpounds€per€square€inch,€while€the€force€applied€to€Mrs.€Smithððs€neck€equaled€thirty„four€pounds€or€more.€€Dr.€Harlan€testified€that€as€a€result€of€the€strangulation,€theÏthyroid€cartilage€surrounding€the€larynx€in€Mrs.€Smithððs€neck€was€fractured.€€TheÏflow€of€both€blood€and€oxygen€to€the€head€ceased.€€Dr.€Harlan€testified€that€sheÍdid€not€die€instantaneously,€but€rather€within€three€to€six€minutes.€€Dr.€HarlanÏtestified€further€that€she€could€have€fallen€unconscious€within€thirty€seconds,€butÏpossibly€later,€after€the€initiation€of€the€force€to€her€neck.€€According€to€Dr.€Harlan,Ïseveral€small€abrasions€on€Mrs.€Smithððs€neck,€indicative€of€fingernail€scratches,Ïsuggest€that€she€possibly€attempted€to€relieve€the€pressure€being€applied.ÌÌà àThe€testimony€also€suggests€that€the€victim€was€raped€before€theÏstrangulation.€€Though€the€appellant€initially€mentioned€in€his€statement€to€the€policeÏthat€only€Patterson€raped€Mrs.€Smith,€he€later€told€the€officers€that€he€too€had€sexÏwith€Mrs.€Smith€that€night.€€Moreover,€the€testimony€of€both€Denning€and€AndrewsÏindicates€that€the€appellant€told€both€of€these€witnesses€he€did€in€fact€rape€Mrs.ÏSmith.€€Dr.€Harlan€testified€that€he€found€a€white€sticky€substance€on€the€victimððsÏbody,€but€he€did€not€determine€exactly€what€it€was.€€There€is€also€testimonyÏsuggesting€that€the€appellant€and€Patterson€poured€wine€coolers€over€Mrs.€SmithððsÏbody€after€the€rapes.€€Furthermore,€the€rapes€apparently€occurred€shortly€after€theÏstrangulation€of€her€husband.€€The€couple€was€abruptly€awakened€in€the€middle€ofÏthe€night.€€Mrs.€Smith€started€screaming,€so€the€appellant€ð ðhid€herðð€in€the€closet€ofÏthe€front€bedroom,€while€his€co„defendant€fought€with€and€strangled€her€husband€inÏthe€master€bedroom.€€Mrs.€Smith€was€then€raped€and€strangled€to€death.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€evidence€implying€that€the€victim€lostÍconsciousness€as€early€as€thirty€seconds€into€the€ordeal€is€insufficient€to€support€aÏfinding€of€the€sole€aggravating€circumstance.€€In€addition,€this€Court€has€a€statutoryÏobligation€to€determine€whether€the€juryððs€verdict€is€supported€by€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€section€39„13„206(c)(1)(B).€€As€is€commonly€recognized,€the€juryððsÏverdict,€approved€by€the€trial€court,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€theÏState€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€Stateððs€theory.€€òòState€v.€Hatchettóó,€560ÏS.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€1978);€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€ÏOn€appeal,€ð ðthe€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€trial€evidenceÏand€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,Ï571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€This€Court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÏevidence.€€òòId.óó€€The€juryððs€finding,€therefore,€will€only€be€disturbed€if,€after€aÏconsideration€of€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€a€rational€trierÏof€fact€could€not€have€found€the€existence€of€the€aggravating€circumstance€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.Ct.€2781€(1979);ÏòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„204(i)(5)€provides€that€the€deathÏpenalty€may€be€imposed€if€the€jury€finds€the€State€has€proven€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€ð ð[t]he€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€inÏthat€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produceÍdeath.ðð× ƒ? ××  ×€€In€òòState€v.€Hodgesóó,€No.€01C01„9212„CR„00382€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€MayÏ18,€1995),€a€panel€of€this€Court€held€that€ð ð[s]trangulation€alone€does€not€establishÏthe€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€aggravating€factor.ðð€€Slip€op.€at€15.€€Accordingly,Ïthere€must€be€evidence€of€some€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€above€andÏbeyond€the€nature€of€the€strangulation€in€order€to€justify€the€heinous,€atrocious,€orÏcruel€aggravator.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€ð ðTortureðð€has€been€defined€as€ð ðthe€infliction€of€severeÏphysical€or€mental€pain€upon€the€victim€while€he€or€she€remains€alive€andÏconscious.ðð€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€529€(Tenn.€1985).€€ð ðSeriousÏphysical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€deathðð€means€just€that;€thereÏmust€be€serious€physical,€not€mental,€abuse,€i.e.,€ð ðan€act€that€is€ððexcessiveðð€orÏwhich€makes€ððimproper€use€of€a€thing,ðð€or€which€uses€a€thing€ððin€a€manner€contraryÍto€the€natural€or€legal€rules€for€its€use.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€26€(Tenn.Ï1996)€(quoting€òòBlackððs€Law€Dictionaryóó€11€(6th€ed.€1990)).€ÌÌà àIn€the€recent€case€of€òòOdomóó,€the€jury€sentenced€the€appellant€to€death€uponÏa€finding€of€the€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€aggravator,€among€others,€for€theÏconviction€of€murder€during€the€perpetration€of€rape.€€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€20„21.€ÏThe€elderly€victim€was€accosted€in€her€car€by€the€appellant,€raped,€and€stabbedÏseveral€times€in€the€heart,€lung,€and€liver.€€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€22.€€She€died€asÏa€result€of€internal€bleeding€which€occurred€from€the€stab€wounds.€€òòId.óó€€In€ruling€thatÏthe€evidence€was€not€sufficient€to€support€the€finding€of€the€especially€heinous,Ïatrocious,€or€cruel€aggravator,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€ð ðrape€(penileÏpenetration)€does€not€òòordinarilyóó€constitute€ððtortureðð€or€ððserious€physical€abuseðð€withinÏthe€meaning€of€[this€aggravating€circumstance].ðð€€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€26Ï(emphasis€added).€€The€Court€further€noted€that€the€stab€wounds€did€not€evidenceÏtorture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àAs€the€State€asserts,€Mrs.€Smith€suffered€mental€torture€when€she€wasÏforcibly€removed€from€her€bed€while€screaming€in€the€middle€of€the€night,€hidden€in€aÏcloset€while€her€husband€was€dead€or€dying,€and€subsequently€raped.€TheÏevidence,€though€not€directly€showing€that€Mrs.€Smith€knew€the€exact€fate€of€herÏspouse,€supports€the€strong€assumption€that€she€heard€what€was€happeningÍand€knew€her€husband€was€in€dire€circumstances.€€The€video€shown€to€the€juryÏclearly€depicts€that€a€profound€struggle€occurred€between€the€assailants€and€Mr.ÏSmith;€the€bed€covers€were€strewn€about€the€room,€Mr.€Smith€was€kneelingÏagainst€the€bed,€fingernail€scratch€marks€were€found€on€his€neck,€and€the€bedÏframe€was€broken€away€from€the€headboard€and€the€mattress€was€lying€on€theÏfloor.€€In€his€statement€to€the€police,€the€appellant€said€that€as€Patterson€left€theÏmaster€bedroom€after€killing€Mr.€Smith,€he€grabbed€Mrs.€Smith€as€she€was€comingÏback€down€the€hallway.€€The€jury€could€easily€have€concluded€that€she€was€goingÏto€check€on€her€husband€after€she€heard€the€struggle.ÌÌà àIt€clearly€appears€from€the€record€that€the€strangulation€occurred€after€theÏrapes€and€while€the€victim€was€conscious.€€Even€though€òòOdomóó€states€that€rapeÏdoes€not€òòordinarilyóó€constitute€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse,€we€find€that€theÏfacts€of€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€more€distinctly€demonstrate€their€existence.€€In€òòOdomóó,Ïthe€victim€was€raped€once.€€Here,€the€victim€was€raped€twice,€and€by€two€differentÏindividuals.€€Moreover,€the€rapes€were€not€committed€upon€the€initial€criminalÏconfrontation.€€In€òòOdomóó,€the€rape€ensued€almost€immediately€after€the€victim€wasÏaccosted.€€Mrs.€Smith€was€not€raped€until€after€she€was€placed€in€a€closet€whereÏshe€apparently€heard€the€attack€on€her€husband.€€And€after€the€rapes€occurred,Ïthe€assailants€òòfurtheróó€tortured€and€ridiculed€Mrs.€Smith€by€pouring€two€bottles€ofÏwine€coolers€over€her€naked€body.ÌÌà àMrs.€Smith€remained€conscious€for€at€least€thirty€seconds€while€she€wasÏbeing€strangled€after€she€had€been€twice€raped.€€The€abrasions€on€her€neckÏindicate€that€she€tried,€unsuccessfully,€to€release€the€pressure€from€around€her€neck.€ÏAlthough€Dr.€Harlan€testified€that€he€was€uncertain€from€the€medical€evidenceÏwhether€a€break€occurred€in€the€strangulation€process,€other€testimony€suggestsÏthat€when€the€initial€attempt€to€strangle€proved€futile,€an€apparent€second,€moreÏsuccessful,€attempt€to€strangle€Mrs.€Smith€was€made€using€a€tourniquet€device.€ÏAs€Joseph€Denning€testified,€the€appellant€told€him€he€made€the€first€attempt€toÏstrangle€Mrs.€Smith.€€According€to€Denningððs€testimony,€the€appellant€lacked€theÏstrength€to€kill€her,€so€Patterson€had€to€complete€the€act€using€the€vase€in€the€scarf.€ÏThe€abrasions€on€Mrs.€Smithððs€neck€indicate€that€she€was€conscious€during€aÏportion€of€the€struggle.€€It€appears€from€the€record€that€Mrs.€Smith€was€forced€toÏendure€not€only€the€severe€physical€pain€of€the€strangulation,€but€the€gruelingÏmental€pain€as€well€of€not€knowing€when€and€if€the€assailants€would€continueÏwhat€probably€appeared€to€her€as€repeated€acts€of€strangulation€and€torture.ÌÌà àCase€law€states€that€a€strangulation,€in€and€of€itself,€is€not€sufficient€toÏestablish€the€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€aggravating€circumstance.€€òòSeeóó€òòHodgesóó,Ïslip€op.€at€15.€€Nor€does€a€rape,€standing€alone,€satisfy€this€aggravator.€€òòSeeóóÏòòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€26.€€However,€we€believe€that€the€strangulation,€combinedÍwith€the€two€rapes€and€the€evidence€surrounding€this€entire€criminal€episode,€doesÏsupport€the€juryððs€finding€of€the€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€aggravatingÏcircumstance€in€this€case.ÌÌà àWe€believe€our€conclusion€is€further€buttressed€by€another€distinctionÏbetween€this€case€and€òòOdomóó.€€In€òòOdomóó,€the€appellant€was€convicted€of€felonyÏmurder€in€the€perpetration€of€rape.€€The€appellant€in€the€present€case€wasÏconvicted€of€felony€murder€in€the€perpetration€of€first€degree€burglary.€€The€Court€inÏòòOdomóó,€holding€that€a€rape€does€not€ordinarily€constitute€torture,€stated€that€to€holdÏotherwise€would€permit€every€murder€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€a€rape€to€beÏautomatically€classified€as€a€death„eligible€offense.€€In€essence,€anotherÏòòMiddlebrooksóó„type€duplication€problem€would€ensue.€€Accordingly,€the€CourtððsÏreasoning€suggests€that€its€statement€about€rape€was€necessitated€because€theÏappellant€stood€convicted€of€felony€murder€in€the€perpetration€of€a€rape.€€BecauseÏthe€appellant€before€us€was€not€convicted€of€murder€in€the€perpetration€of€a€rape,Ïwe€are€satisfied€that€our€holding€does€not€create€the€constitutional€infractionÏintimated€by€the€Supreme€Court.ÌÌà àò ò(2).ó ó€€The€appellant€claims€that€because€the€testimony€demonstrates€thatÏPatterson€actually€killed€Mrs.€Smith,€there€is€insufficient€evidence€to€sustain€the€juryððsÏfinding€of€the€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€aggravator.€€The€SupremeÍCourt,€in€òòState€v.€Branamóó,€855€S.W.2d€563,€570€(Tenn.€1993),€outlined€theÏcontrolling€law€addressing€the€appellantððs€claim:ÌÓÓà8 àIn€òòEdmund€v.€Floridaóó,€458€U.S.€782,€789,€102€S.Ct.€3368,€3372,€73ÏL.Ed.2d€1140€(1982),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€deathÏis€a€disproportionate€penalty€and,€therefore,€constitutes€cruel€andÏunusual€punishment€under€the€Eighth€Amendment,€where€it€is€imposedÏagainst€a€defendant€ð ðsolely€for€participation€in€a€robbery€in€whichÏanother€robber€takes€life,ðð€without€proof€that€the€defendant€himselfÏattempted€or€intended€to€kill,€or€intended€that€lethal€force€be€used.€€ThisÏconstitutional€standard€was€refined€by€the€Court€in€òòTison€v.€Arizonaóó,Ï481€U.S.€137,€158,€107€S.Ct.€1676,€1688,€95€L.Ed.2d€127€(1987),€inÏwhich€it€was€held€that€the€Eighth€Amendment€does€not€prohibit€theÏdeath€penalty€in€the€case€of€a€defendant€whose€participation€in€aÏfelony€that€results€in€murder€is€major€and€whose€mental€state€at€theÏtime€is€one€of€reckless€indifference€to€the€value€of€human€life€„„€evenÏthough€the€proof€fails€to€show€intent€to€kill.ÌÓ€ÓÌòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„407€(ð ðit€is€no€defense€that€.€.€.€(2)€The€person€for€whoseÏconduct€the€defendant€is€criminally€responsible€has€been€acquitted,€has€not€beenÏprosecuted€or€convicted,€has€been€convicted€of€a€different€offense€or€different€typeÏor€class€of€offense,€or€is€immune€from€prosecution.ðð)ÌÌà àEven€though€there€is€some€testimony€which€suggests€that€Patterson€wasÏthe€one€who€ultimately€strangled€Mrs.€Smith€to€death,€the€testimony€also€showsÏthat€the€appellant€attempted€to€strangle€the€victim€but€simply€did€not€have€enoughÏstrength€to€bring€the€task€to€the€intended€conclusion.€€This€does€not€substantiallyÏreduce€his€culpability.€€Thus€the€appellantððs€claim€in€this€respect€must€fail.Ìò òÓÓÓ  ÓÌÌà@ àCONSTITUTIONALITY€OF€THE€ESPECIALLY€HEINOUS,€ATROCIOUS,ÏOR€CRUEL€à@ àAGGRAVATORó óÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àNext,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€language€of€the€aggravatingÍcircumstance€found€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„204(i)(5)€is€tooÏvague€to€satisfy€constitutional€standards.€€This€aggravating€circumstance€can€beÏimposed€in€the€death€penalty€context€if€the€jury€determines€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€that€ð ð[t]he€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involvedÏtorture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.ðð€€òòId.óó€ÏFurthermore,€the€appellant€claims€the€definitions€of€the€terms€in€the€statute€given€byÏthe€trial€court€are€themselves€too€vague€as€well.€€The€Supreme€Court€recentlyÏaddressed€this€issue€in€òòOdomóó.€€The€Court€upheld€the€validity€of€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance€under€constitutional€attacks.€€òòSeeóó€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€25„26.€ÏAccordingly,€the€appellantððs€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àSENTENCE€OF€LIFE€WITHOUT€POSSIBILITY€OF€PAROLEó óÌà àThe€appellant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€instructed€the€jury€itÏcould€consider€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole€as€an€alternative€sentence.€€TheÏappellant€relies€upon€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€39„13„204(k)€and€39„11„112€in€support€of€his€argument.€€The€State€contends€that€because€the€offensesÏin€this€case€were€committed€prior€to€the€amendment€providing€life€without€theÏpossibility€of€parole,€the€appellant€was€properly€sentenced€under€the€old€language.€ÏMoreover,€the€State€asserts€the€appellant€should€be€prevented€from€raising€thisÏissue€on€appeal€when€he€requested€the€trial€court€not€to€inform€the€jury€of€the€newÏsentencing€option.€€Ìà àSection€39„13„204(k)€was€amended€in€1993,€and€that€amendment€providesÏin€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 àIf€the€trial€court,€or€any€other€court€with€jurisdiction€to€do€so,€orders€thatÏa€defendant€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€(whether€the€sentence€isÏdeath,€imprisonment€for€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole€orÏimprisonment€for€life)€be€granted€a€new€trial,€either€as€to€guilt€orÏpunishment€or€both,€the€new€trial€shall€include€the€possibleÏpunishments€of€death,€imprisonment€for€life€without€the€possibility€ofÏparole€or€imprisonment€for€life.ÌÌòòÓÓSeeóó€òòalsoóó€ðð€39„13„202(c)€(1993)€(creating€penalty€of€life€without€possibility€ofÏparole).€€According€to€the€appellant,€because€he€was€granted€a€new€sentencingÏhearing,€this€section€of€the€code€states€that€he€shall€receive€the€benefit€of€anÏinstruction€on€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole.€€The€State,€on€the€other€hand,Ïargues€that€section€16€of€chapter€473€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1993€provides€that€thisÏnew€sentencing€option€shall€only€apply€to€offenses€committed€on€or€after€July€1,Ï1993.€€According€to€the€State,€since€the€offenses€in€this€case€occurred€in€1987,€theÏtrial€court€was€not€authorized€under€this€section€of€the€code€to€instruct€the€jury€on€lifeÏwithout€the€possibility€of€parole€as€an€available€sentence.ÌÌà àAlternatively,€the€appellant€cites€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„11„112€as€authority€in€support€of€his€argument.€€This€section€states:ÌÓÓà8 àWhenever€any€penal€statute€or€penal€legislative€act€of€the€state€isÏrepealed€or€amended€by€a€subsequent€legislative€act,€any€offense,Ïas€defined€by€the€statute€or€act€being€repealed€or€amended,Ïcommitted€while€such€statute€or€act€was€in€full€force€and€effect€shall€beÏprosecuted€under€the€act€or€statute€in€effect€at€the€time€of€theÍcommission€of€the€offense.€€Except€as€provided€under€the€provisionsÏof€ðð€40„35„117,€in€the€Çà8 àevent€the€subsequent€act€provides€for€a€lesser€penalty,€anyÏpunishment€imposed€shall€be€in€accordance€with€the€subsequentÏact.× ƒ@ ××  ×ÌÌÌÓÓThe€appellant€argues€that€because€the€1993€amendments€to€the€death€penaltyÏstatute€provide€for€the€sentencing€alternative€of€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole,Ïwhich€could€arguably€be€considered€a€lesser€penalty,€the€trial€judge€should€haveÏinstructed€the€jury€on€this€option€as€mandated€by€the€above„quoted€statute.ÌÌà àContrary€to€the€appellantððs€claim,€however,€we€are€convinced€that€the€trialÏjudge€ruled€correctly€in€this€case.€€As€this€Court€announced€in€òòState€ex.€rel.€StewartÏv.€McWherteróó,€857€S.W.2d€875,€877€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€òòidóó.,€(Tenn.€1993),€ð ð[t]he€criminal€savings€statute€[ðð€39„11„112]€has€neverÏbeen€interpreted€to€apply€to€convictions€and€sentences€which€were€alreadyÏreceived€when€a€subsequent€act€or€amendment€provided€for€a€lesser€penalty.ðð€ÏFurthermore,€the€effective€date€section€of€the€life€without€parole€act€mandates€thatÏthe€entire€new€act,€not€solely€subsection€(k)€dealing€with€new€trials,€shall€applyÏonly€to€offenses€committed€after€July€1,€1993.€€Furthermore,€the€Supreme€Court€inÏthis€case€ordered€the€new€sentencing€hearing€in€1989,€well€before€the€amendmentsÏcreating€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole€were€enacted.€€Given€the€preciseÍlanguage€of€the€act,€we€do€not€believe€the€legislature€intended€for€the€newÏsentencing€option€to€encompass€those€crimes€committed€before€July€1,€1993.€ÏAccordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àÌò òÌà@ àPROSECUTORIAL€MISCONDUCTó óÌà àThe€appellant€claims€the€death€penalty€should€be€reversed€because€certainÏremarks€made€by€the€prosecutor€during€closing€arguments€violated€his€constitutionalÏrights.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€contends€the€prosecutor€engaged€in€inappropriateÏname„calling,€and€improperly€encouraged€the€jury€to€ð ðdo€its€dutyðð€for€the€sake€ofÏdeterrence.€€The€State€argues€that€the€remarks€were€in€response€to€the€appellantððsÏargument€and€were€in€accordance€with€the€courtððs€instructions€on€the€law.€€Even€ifÏthe€statements€were€inappropriate,€the€State€asserts€that€they€were€rather€briefÏand€of€little€significance,€and€therefore€any€error€was€harmless.ÌÌà àAs€is€commonly€recognized,€closing€arguments€are€an€important€tool€for€theÏparties€during€the€trial€process.€€Consequently,€the€attorneys€are€usually€given€wideÏlatitude€in€the€scope€of€their€arguments,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€809Ï(Tenn.€1994),€and€trial€judges€in€turn€are€accorded€wide€discretion€in€their€control€ofÏthose€arguments,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,€888€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòidóó.,€(Tenn.€1995).€€Such€scope€and€discretion,€however,€isÍnot€completely€unfettered.€€The€test€for€determining€whether€the€prosecuting€attorneyÏcommitted€reversible€misconduct€in€the€argument€is€ð ðwhether€the€improper€conductÏcould€have€affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.ðð€€òòHarrington€v.ÏStateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(Tenn.€1965).€€The€following€factors€have€beenÏrecognized€to€aid€the€Court€in€this€determination:€1)€the€conduct€complained€of,Ïviewed€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case;€2)€the€curative€measuresÏundertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecutor;€3)€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€makingÏthe€improper€statement;€4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€anyÏother€errors€in€the€record;€and€5)€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.€ÏòòState€v.€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,€609€(Tenn.€1984);€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2dÏ340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).ÌÌà àThe€following€is€a€recitation€of€the€relevant€portion€of€the€Stateððs€rebuttalÏargument€at€issue€here:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àYes,€we€are€asking€for€the€death€penalty.€€Why?€€Why€shouldÏRonnie€Cauthern€die?€€I€once€heard€an€interpretation€of€the€LordððsÏPrayer.€€ð ðDeliver€us€from€evil,ðð€originally€translated€and€actually€read,Ïð ðDeliver€us€from€the€evil€oneðð€„„€far€more€personally,€far€more€graphic,Ïand€far€more€intense€„„€the€evil€one.ÌÌà8 àà àIn€the€1960's,€the€Rolling€Stones€came€out€with€a€song.€€TheÏrefrain€after€each€chorus€was,€ð ðPleased€to€meet€you.€€Hope€youÏguess€my€name.ðð€€And,€I€suggest€to€you€it€was€a€song€about€the€evilÏone€appearing€in€person€throughout€the€ages€in€many€different€guises.€ÏMr.€Poland€says€civilized€society€„„€in€civilized€society,€we€donððt€kill.€ÍBut€in€civilized€society,€we€must€address€„„€we€must€stand€up€to,€weÏmust€confront€the€realities€of€our€daily€existence€and€our€daily€survivalÏnot€only€of€ourselves€but€of€our€children€and€their€children.ÌÌà8 àà àIt€came€to€dawn€on€me€after€I€thought€about,€ð ðPleased€to€meetÏyou,€hope€you€guess€my€nameðð€„„€that€on€January€8th€and€JanuaryÏ9th,€1987,€the€evil€one€descended€upon€Patrick€and€Rosemary€Smith,Ïand€the€evil€one€is€smart,€the€evil€one€is€skilled,€the€evil€one€is€wily,Ïand€the€evil€one€is€manipulative.€€A€simple€little€demonstration€of€that,Ïladies€and€gentlemen,€is€this.€€The€evil€one€appeared€today€andÏproduced€greeting€cards€„„€ð ðMerry€Christmas,ðð€ð ðHappy€Holidays.ððÌÌà8 àà àBut€on€January€the€8th,€1987,€the€evil€one€appeared€at€the€doorÏof€351€Hampshire€Drive,€a€home€not€unlike€yours€in€a€neighborhoodÏnot€unlike€yours€„„the€evil€one€appeared€there€in€disguise€„„a€mask,€aÏblack€jacket,€a€pistol,€strangling€rope,€and€the€evil€one€is€capable€ofÏtaking€advantage€of€what€was€available€inside€their€house.ÌÌà8 àà àYes,€whether€you€like€it€or€not€„„whether€you€volunteered€or€not,Ïyou€were€engaged€in€the€ultimate€battle€in€everyday€combat€with€theÏevil€one,€and€heððs€not€going€to€go€away.€€He€appeared€in€MinnesotaÏin€the€form€of€Jeffrey€Dahlmer[sic].€€He€appeared€in€Union,€SouthÏCarolina,€and€on€January€the€9th,€he€appeared€in€the€door€of€PatrickÏand€Rosemary€Smith.€€You€cannot€negotiate€with€the€evil€one,€ladiesÏand€gentlemen.€€You€cannot€deal€in€good€faith€with€the€evil€one.€€You€Çà8 àhave€got€to€destroy€and€destroy,€or€he€and€his€benefactors€willÏdestroy€you.€€Heððll€destroy€us.€€Heððll€destroy€our€children.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€evil€one€took€the€name€of€Ronnie€Cauthern€on€that€day.€ÏThat€was€his€name,€and€heððs€beyond€redemption.€€Heððs€beyondÏrehabilitation.€€There€is€no€treatment€for€this€individual€posing€in€a€maskÏand€taking€human€form.€€There€is€no€treatment€for€this€person.€€ThisÏperson€has€been€around€through€the€ages€and€will€appear€again.€ÏYou€cannot€cure€him.€€Donððt€try€to€save€him.€€Engage€him€in€combatÏand€destroy€him.€€Do€your€duty.€€When€you€open€that€paper€and€youÏfind€that€the€State€has€carried€out€your€instruction,€you€will€have€scaledÏthe€ramparts€at€least€one€time,€and€you€will€have€been€a€part€ofÏbringing€back€peace€and€tranquility€in€your€community€and€in€ourÏcommunity,€and€you€will€send€a€message€to€the€evil€one.€€You€willÏsend€a€message€that€we€stand€ready€„„armed,€and€ready€to€fight€forÏall€in€the€world,€for€everything€that€you€believe€in,€for€the€sanctity€ofÏyour€home,€the€blessing€of€seeing€your€children€reach€adulthood€andÏhave€your€grandchildren,€and€you€will€take€that€step€and€leave€aÏlegacy€to€your€children€that€they€someday€will€not€have€to€grappleÏwith€what€the€à8 àSmiths€had€to€deal€with€andÏwhat€Karen€Rivetna€and€herÏmother€have€to€deal€with.ÌÌà8 àà àð ðHoliday€GreetingsÔ€Ô@Ô€Ô€„„a€time€for€loved€ones€to€get€together.€ÏHorrible€chaos€has€been€reaped€and€racked€on€this€family.€€Iððm€askingÏyou€to€do€your€duty.€€Stand€tall.€€Thank€you.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant€contends€that€references€to€him€as€the€ð ðevil€oneðð€were€highlyÏinappropriate.€€The€appellant€further€argues€he€was€prejudiced€when€theÏprosecutor€compared€him€to€the€devil,€Jeffrey€Dahmer,€and€Susan€Smith.€€ClosingÏarguments€must€be€temperate,€must€be€based€upon€evidence€introduced€duringÏtrial,€and€must€be€pertinent€to€the€issues€being€tried.€€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2dÏ357,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòidóó.,€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.ÏTysonóó,€603€S.W.2d€748,€754€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€Remarks€during€argumentÍcomparing€the€appellant€to€other€people€and€biblical€figures€are€irrelevant€andÏpatently€improper.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Batesóó,€804€S.W.2d€868,€881€(Tenn.€1991).€ÏMoreover,€it€appears€to€be€well€established€in€Tennessee€that€references€to€biblicalÏpassages€or€religious€law€Çduring€a€criminal€trial€are€also€inappropriate.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2dÏ530,€541€(Tenn.€1994);€òòKirkendoll€v.€Stateóó,€281€S.W.2d€243,€254€(Tenn.€1955).€€ÌÌà àAs€the€appellant€suggests,€the€predominate€theme€in€the€Stateððs€finalÏargument€appears€not€only€to€be€couched€in€terms€of€religion,€but€also€appeals€toÏdeterrence.€€While€the€federal€constitution€does€not€preclude€the€sentencing€jury€in€aÏcapital€case€from€considering€the€future€dangerousness€of€a€particular€appellantÏwhere€such€is€a€relevant€factor€under€the€sentencing€statute,€òòseeóó€òòSpaziano€v.ÏFloridaóó,€468€U.S.€447,€104€S.Ct.€3154,€82€L.Ed.2d€340€(1984);€òòCalifornia€v.€Ramosóó,Ï463€U.S.€992,€103€S.Ct.€3446,€77€L.Ed.2d€1171€(1983);€òòJurek€v.€Texasóó,€428€U.S.Ï262,€96€S.Ct.€2950,€49€L.Ed.2d€929€(1976),€Tennessee€courts€have€held€thatÏgeneral€deterrence€is€not€an€appropriate€argument€during€sentencing,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.ÏIrickóó,€762€S.W.2d€121,€131€(Tenn.€1988).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Batesóó,€804€S.W.2dÏ868,€882€(Tenn.€1991).€€An€argument€based€upon€deterrence€is€usually€consideredÏirrelevant€and€unrelated€to€any€mitigating€or€aggravating€circumstance,€unless€theÏargument€relates€to€either€the€Stateððs€or€appellantððs€theory€of€the€case.€€òòBatesóó,€804ÏS.W.2d€at€882.€€As€this€Court€has€held,€however,€ð ðthe€prosecutor€[does]€notÏengage€in€misconduct€by€commenting€that€the€jury€[is]€ððthe€voice€for€this€community.ððððÏòòState€v.€Daltonóó,€No.€02C01„9408„CR„00291,€Davidson€County,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€July€11,€1995).€€The€State€ð ðmust€[nonetheless]€refrain€from€argumentÏdesigned€to€inflame€the€jury.ðð€€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€357,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.ÍApp.€1995).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,€888€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995)€(citing€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758€(Tenn.€1965)).ÌÌÇà àThe€State€argues€that€the€comments€were€made€in€rebuttal€to€theÏappellantððs€statement€that€a€civilized€society€does€not€kill.€€The€State€also€claimsÏthat€its€reference€to€the€evil€one€was€in€accordance€with€the€courtððs€definition€ofÏð ðatrocious:€extremely€evil€or€cruel.ðð€€According€to€the€State,€the€prosecutor€wasÏsimply€trying€to€satisfy€the€aggravating€circumstance.€ÌÌà àThe€prosecutor€intended€obviously€to€impress€upon€the€jury€that€theÏappellant€is€an€evil€person€who€deserves€the€death€penalty.€€The€Stateððs€positionÏin€the€trial,€however,€was€obvious€as€well€when€it€filed€notice€of€intent€to€seek€theÏdeath€penalty.€€The€prosecutor€told€the€jury€to€do€its€duty.€€This€is€arguably€noÏdifferent€than€the€prosecutor€asking€the€jury€to€return€a€guilty€verdict.€€Accordingly,€itÏappears€to€us€that€the€prosecutor€was€simply€reiterating€the€Stateððs€position€thatÏthe€nature€of€the€crimes€warranted€an€extreme€punishment.€€Of€course,€referencesÏto€the€evil€one,€the€devil€and€other€notorious€criminals€are€not€relevant€to€the€factsÏand€circumstances€of€this€case€and€are€thus€improper.€€Insinuations€regardingÏdeterrence€are€also€improper.€€The€appellant,€however,€did€not€object€to€this€line€ofÏargument€and€the€court€thus€took€no€curative€measures.× ƒA ××  ×ÌÌà àAfter€examining€the€above„quoted€remarks€in€light€of€the€entire€closingÏargument,€the€facts€and€circumstances€surrounding€the€case,€and€the€overallÏstrength€of€the€Stateððs€case,€however,€we€cannot€say€that€the€improper€comments€Çmade€during€the€Stateððs€rebuttal€argument€affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€theÏappellant.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ìò òÌà@ àADMISSION€OF€THE€VIDEOTAPEó óÌà àThe€appellant€claims€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€by€allowingÏinto€evidence€a€videotape€depicting€the€crime€scene.€€Specifically,€the€appellantÏargues€that€those€segments€of€the€tape€showing€the€officers€turning€the€bodiesÏover€onto€their€backs€in€order€to€obtain€an€anterior€view€were€highly€inflammatoryÏand€irrelevant.€€The€appellant€places€great€weight€upon€the€fact€that€the€original€trialÏjudge€redacted€from€the€juryððs€view€during€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€those€scenesÏdepicting€the€moving€of€the€bodies.€€In€response,€the€State€argues€that€the€videoÏwas€relevant€to€show€the€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€nature€of€the€crime.ÌÌà àThe€admissibility€of€relevant€videotapes€of€the€crime€scene€and€victims€hasÏlong€been€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€and€his€or€her€ruling€onÏadmissibility€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€absent€a€clear€showing€of€an€abuseÏof€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó,ÏòòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€807€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864ÏS.W.2d€465,€477€(Tenn.€1993).€€Moreover,€the€recent€trend€is€to€vest€more€discretionÏin€the€trial€judge's€rulings€on€admissibility.€€òòSeeóó€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€949;€òòState€v.ÏBaileyóó,€No.€01C01„9403„CC„00105,€Dickson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,ÍJuly€20,€1995);€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòidóó.,€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌà àEvidence€is€relevant€if€it€has€"any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€anyÏfact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€lessÏprobable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€However,Ïrelevant€evidence€"may€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantiallyÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleadingÏthe€jury."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€Along€these€lines,€the€trial€court€should€be€guided€byÏthe€following€matters€in€determining€the€admissibility€of€relevant€videotape€evidence:Ïthe€accuracy€and€clarity€of€the€video€and€its€value€as€evidence;€whether€the€videoÏdepicts€the€body€as€it€was€found;€the€adequacy€of€testimonial€evidence€in€relatingÏthe€facts€to€the€jury;€and€the€need€for€the€evidence€to€establish€a€òòprima€facieóó€caseÏof€guilt€or€to€rebut€the€defendant's€contentions.€€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€951.ÌÌà àPrior€to€the€sentencing€hearing€on€remand,€the€trial€judge€heard€argumentsÏregarding€the€admission€of€the€videotape€and€ruled€that€the€probative€value€of€theÏevidence€in€regards€to€the€aggravating€factor€outweighed€any€unfair€prejudicialÏeffect.€€The€court€also€ordered€that€the€sound€be€turned€off€so€as€to€avoid€anyÏimproper€influence€from€the€comments€of€the€officers.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864ÏS.W.2d€465,€477€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€segments€of€the€videotape€at€issue€in€thisÏappeal€deal€with€the€camera€shots€of€the€victims.€€Those€portions€showing€theÍgeneral€layout€of€the€house€and€the€evidence€of€the€burglary,€while€arguablyÏirrelevant€for€purposes€of€sentencing,€are€not€at€issue.ÌÌà àBoth€victims€were€found€lying€face€down.€€Mr.€Smithððs€body€was€wrapped€inÏthe€covers€kneeling€against€and€on€the€bed,€and€Mrs.€Smithððs€body€was€nude€onÏthe€floor.€€The€video€shows€close„ups€of€both€victims€as€they€were€found.€€TheÏvideo€then€shows€the€officers€removing€the€covers€from€around€Mr.€Smithððs€body,Ïturning€his€body€onto€his€back,€and€examining€his€neck,€arms€and€legs.€€The€videoÏzooms€in€on€the€wounds€around€his€neck€and€face.€€Likewise,€the€video€showsÏthe€officers€removing€the€scarf€from€around€Mrs.€Smithððs€neck€and€flipping€her€bodyÏover.€€Again,€the€video€zooms€in€on€the€wounds€around€her€neck€and€face.€€ÌÌà àBoth€bodies€exhibit€a€bluish€tint€to€the€skin€and€lips,€as€well€as€the€effects€ofÏlividity€and€rigor€mortis.€€While€the€appellant€may€be€correct€to€argue€that€theseÏpostmortem€features€are€irrelevant€to€any€aspect€of€the€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruelÏaggravator,€the€nature€of€the€various€wounds€to€the€neck€do€appear€relevant.€ÏEach€victim€was€strangled€with€a€different€object,€and€thus€received€different€typesÏof€strangulation€marks€around€the€neck.€€Moreover,€as€the€expert€testimonyÏdemonstrated,€the€pictures€of€what€are€probably€fingernail€scratches€indicate€thatÏthe€victims€attempted€to€free€the€pressure€from€around€their€necks.€€Because€of€theÏposition€in€which€the€victims€were€found,€it€was€necessary€for€the€officers€to€turn€theÍbodies€over€to€examine€the€wounds€to€the€neck.€€As€the€forensic€pathologistÏstated,€the€bluish€color€of€the€skin,€i.e.€cyanosis,€is€a€natural€consequence€of€thisÏtype€of€killing.€€The€stiffness€of€the€bodies€resulting€from€the€rigor€mortis€is€alsoÏcommon€after€death,€and€not€in€and€of€itself€so€inflammatory.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,Ï885€S.W.2d€797,€807€(Tenn.€1994).€€As€the€trial€court€noted,€though€the€condition€ofÏthe€bodies€is€not€pleasant€by€any€means,€it€is€ð ðnot€so€gruesome€as€to€.€.€.€shockÏthe€conscience€of€the€Court€or€of€the€jury.ðð€€ÌÌà àWe€believe€the€videos€were€relevant€to€the€juryððs€determination€of€whetherÏthe€murders€were€especially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel.€€We€conclude€that€theÏprobative€value€of€the€videotape€outweighs€any€unfair€prejudicial€effect,€and€the€trialÏjudge€therefore€acted€appropriately.€€Contrary€to€the€appellantððs€argument,€the€factÏthat€the€judge€on€remand€allowed€more€of€the€video€to€be€shown€than€did€theÏoriginal€trial€judge€is€irrelevant€to€this€Courtððs€inquiry€into€the€issue.€€The€originalÏjudgeððs€ruling€was€based€in€part€on€showing€the€video€during€the€guilt€phase€of€theÏtrial€rather€than€the€sentencing€phase.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àEVIDENCE€OF€UNRELATED€CRIMESó óÌà àThe€appellant€also€argues€that€reversible€error€occurred€when€the€StateÏintroduced€evidence€concerning€a€different€robbery€for€which€the€appellant€hadÏbeen€tried€and€acquitted.€€In€response,€the€State€argues€the€appellant€has€waivedÍthe€issue€because€he€permitted€the€introduction€of€the€evidence€and€denied€theÏcourtððs€offer€of€a€curative€instruction.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€was€originally€indicted€on€eight€counts€in€this€case.€€Three€ofÏthose€charges€pertained€to€crimes€unrelated€to€the€incident€at€the€Smithsðð€residence,Ïand€they€were€severed€from€the€indictment.€€The€appellant€was€subsequently€triedÏand€acquitted€on€those€three€counts.€€Prior€to€the€resentencing€hearing,€the€trialÏjudge€granted€the€appellantððs€motion€to€keep€the€separate€charges€from€the€juryÏand€warned€the€State€that€a€mistrial€could€follow€if€evidence€of€them€surfaced.€€ÌÌà àDuring€the€Stateððs€proof€in€the€hearing,€the€State€asked€Detective€CharlesÏDenton€to€read€one€of€the€appellantððs€statements€into€evidence.€€This€statementÏwas€obtained€during€the€first€interview€with€the€appellant€on€January€12,€1987.€ÏThe€appellant€objected€to€the€introduction€of€this€statement€because€it€was€not€aÏverbatim€recording€of€the€conversation€between€the€officer€and€the€appellant,€butÏrather€consisted€of€Detective€Dentonððs€annotations€from€the€interview.€€The€courtÏoverruled€the€objection€and€allowed€the€jury€to€review€copies€of€the€statement€whileÏthe€officer€read€it€aloud€on€the€stand.€€The€following€question€and€answer€appear€inÏthis€statement:€ð ðQuestion€„€Do€you€know€who€committed€the€armed€robbery€at€theÏHornbuckle€66?€€Answer€„€No.ðð€€This€reference€was€to€one€of€the€three€charges€onÏwhich€the€appellant€was€acquitted.€€After€this€portion€of€the€statement€was€read,Íthe€appellant€voiced€another€objection.€€The€court€informed€the€witness€not€to€readÏone€further€question€in€the€statement€pertaining€to€the€Hornbuckle€robbery.€€TheÏappellant,€however,€moved€for€a€mistrial€because€the€jury€was€in€fact€readingÏalong€with€the€officer€and€could€see€the€next€question:€ð ðQuestion€„€Do€you€know€ifÏJoe€commit€[sic]€the€burglary€„€robbery€with€Pat?€€Answer€„€I€think€so.ðð€€The€courtÏoverruled€the€motion€for€mistrial,€and€the€following€exchange€occurred:€ð ðCourt€„€WhatÏinstruction€do€you€suggest€I€give?€.€.€.€[Appellantððs€counsel]€„€Weððll€just€stand€on€theÏMotion€for€Mistrial.ððÌÌà àThis€situation€is€quite€similar€to€that€in€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908€(Tenn.Ï1994).€€In€òòSmithóó,€one€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses€made€reference€to€the€defendantððsÏprior€jail€time.€€The€defendant€moved€for€a€mistrial,€which€the€court€denied.€€The€court,Ïhowever,€gave€the€jury€a€curative€instruction€to€disregard€the€statement€and€not€toÏconsider€it€for€any€purpose.€€òòId.óó€at€923.€€The€Supreme€Court€held€that€it€mustÏassume€the€jury€followed€the€trial€courtððs€instruction.€€òòId.óó€€Moreover,€the€Court€notedÏthat€given€the€record€as€a€whole€in€that€capital€case,€the€statement,€thoughÏimproper,€could€not€have€prejudicially€affected€the€jury.€€òòId.óó€(citing€T.R.A.P.€36(b)).€ÏLikewise,€in€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€72€(Tenn.€1992)€(citing€T.R.A.P.€36(b)),Ïthe€Supreme€Court,€in€considering€the€effect€of€statements€concerning€prior€criminalÏactivity€on€the€juryððs€verdict€in€a€capital€case,€stated€that€the€admission€of€theÏevidence€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€when€viewed€in€context€ofÍthe€entire€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€751€S.W.2d€154,€164€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1987);€òòState€v.€Lawsonóó,€695€S.W.2d€202,€204€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).ÌÌà àThe€decisions€in€the€above„cited€cases€were€based€in€part€upon€theÏappellate€courtððs€assumption€that€the€jury€obeyed€the€trial€courtððs€curative€instructionÏpertaining€to€the€inadmissible€evidence.€€In€the€case€at€hand,€the€trial€court€gave€noÏcurative€instruction.€€However,€as€the€State€notes,€the€appellant€refused€to€entertainÏthe€trial€courtððs€offer€to€give€such€an€instruction.€€The€decisions€in€the€above„citedÏopinions€also€relied€upon€the€rationale€of€T.R.A.P.€36(b):€ð ðA€final€judgment€fromÏwhich€relief€is€available€and€otherwise€appropriate€shall€not€be€set€aside€unless,Ïconsidering€the€whole€record,€error€involving€a€substantial€right€more€probably€thanÏnot€affected€the€judgment€or€would€result€in€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.ðð€€TheÏfirst€part€of€that€same€rule€states,€in€pertinent€part,€that€ð ðNothing€in€this€rule€shall€beÏconstrued€as€requiring€relief€be€granted€to€a€party€responsible€for€an€error€or€whoÏfailed€to€take€whatever€action€was€reasonably€available€to€prevent€or€nullify€theÏharmful€effect€of€an€error.ðð€€T.R.A.P.€36(a).€€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€although€the€trial€court€seemed€willing€to€entertain€a€request€forÏan€instruction,€the€appellant€refused€to€recommend€an€instruction€and€decidedÏinstead€to€stand€on€his€motion€for€mistrial.€€The€record€indicates€that€the€appellantÏalso€had€an€opportunity€to€review€the€statement€before€it€was€introduced,€and€didÍnot€object€to€the€improper€references.× ƒB ××  ×€€We€believe€Rule€36(a)€controls€our€decisionÏhere.€€Moreover,€considering€the€whole€record€as€mandated€by€36(b),€we€find€theÏerror€to€be€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€improper€statements€wereÏbrief,€and€given€the€context€in€which€they€were€made,€added€no€ð ðððnew€dimension€toÏthe€jurorsðð€view€of€[the€appellant]ðððð.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€72€(Tenn.€1992)Ï(quoting€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€714€S.W.2d€241,€247„48€(Tenn.€1986)).€€The€statementsÏdo€not€associate€the€appellant€with€any€other€criminal€activity€or€legal€proceedings.€ÏFurthermore,€before€the€hearing,€the€trial€judge€stated€that€a€mistrial€could€beÏwarranted€if€any€improper€evidence€concerning€the€prior€acquittals€were€introduced.€ÏSince€he€overruled€the€appellantððs€motion,€the€judge€must€have€been€satisfied€thatÏno€prejudice€resulted€from€these€improper€statements.€€We€agree.€€This€issue,Ïtherefore,€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àADMISSION€OF€TRANSCRIPT€OF€RECORDED€STATEMENT€ó óÌà àNext,€the€appellant€contends€it€was€reversible€error€for€the€trial€court€to€allowÏa€transcript€of€a€tape„recorded€statement€into€evidence€when€the€State€wasÏunable€to€produce€the€original€recording.€€The€State€argues€that€the€original€hasÏbeen€lost€and€that€the€transcript€was€properly€admitted€under€the€exception€to€theÏbest€evidence€rule.ÌÌà àThe€evidence€at€issue€here€consists€of€a€transcript€of€a€tape„recordedÏinterview€between€the€appellant€and€Detectives€Denton€and€Griffy.€€On€the€initialÏdirect€appeal€of€this€case,€the€Supreme€Court€reversed€the€death€penalty€basedÏupon€the€improper€introduction€of€a€portion€of€the€interview.€€In€accordance€with€theÏSupreme€Courtððs€opinion,€that€portion€of€the€statement€was€not€introduced€duringÏthe€hearing€on€remand.€€On€remand,€a€redacted€transcript€was€read€into€evidenceÏwhich€omitted€any€mention€of€Brett€Patterson.€€As€part€of€his€complaint,€theÏappellant€argues€that€he€was€ð ðforced€into€the€untenable€positionðð€of€subsequentlyÏhaving€to€introduce€the€unredacted€portions€of€the€statement€which€referred€toÏPattersonððs€involvement.ÌÌà àPrior€to€the€introduction€of€the€transcript€into€evidence,€there€was€someÏdiscussion€among€the€parties€and€the€judge€concerning€the€whereabouts€of€theÏoriginal€taped€recording.€€Apparently,€the€tape€was€lost€or€misplaced€by€theÏSupreme€Court€sometime€during€the€prior€proceedings.€€The€trial€judge€made€theÏfollowing€ruling:ÌÓÓÌà8 àAll€right.€€And,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€already€seen€it.€€ItððsÏbeen€authenticated€by€the€Trial€Court€in€Montgomery€County€and€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court.€€Iððm€going€to€let€them€read€that€portionÏwhich€the€Supreme€Court€said€was€admissible€.€.€.€As€an€officer€of€theÏCourt,€Iððm€saying€that€[the€state]€properly€has€this€transcribed€from€theÏoriginal€tapes,€and€over€your€objection€and€after€noting€your€exception,ÍIððm€going€to€allow€its€admission€.€.€.€€Itððs€just€that€the€tape€is€now€goneÏand€has€been€lost€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€.€.€.€and€IððmÏassuming€that€this€transcript€.€.€.€is€proper.ÌÌÌÓÓà àAccording€to€the€record€before€the€Court,€the€transcript€of€the€recordedÏinterview€was€authenticated€and€introduced€during€the€original€trial€of€this€case.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€778€S.W.2d€39,€41€(Tenn.€1989).€€During€that€trial,€theÏtrial€judge€ordered€the€State€to€›redact€œthose€portions€of€the€statement€that€referred€toÏPatterson€before€the€statement€was€introduced.€€Moreover,€the€trial€judge€onÏremand€acknowledged€the€fact€that€the€taped€recording€has€been€lost.€€Rule€1004Ïof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€provides€that€other€evidence€of€the€originalÏrecording€is€admissible€if€the€original€has€been€lost€or€destroyed.€€Accordingly,€theÏintroduction€of€the€transcript€was€proper.€€ÌÌà àNeither€is€there€any€merit€to€the€appellantððs€claim€that€he€was€prejudiced€byÏthe€introduction€of€both€the€redacted€and€unredacted€transcripts.€€The€appellantÏseems€to€suggest€that€the€evidence€of€the€redacted€statement€placed€undueÏemphasis€on€his€involvement€in€the€crimes.€€The€trial€judge,€however,€allowed€theÏwitness€to€take€the€stand€again€and€read€the€unredacted€portions€into€evidence.€ÏAny€harm€caused€by€the€redacted€statement,€therefore,€was€cured€by€theÏadditional€evidence.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àNONSTATUTORY€MITIGATING€CIRCUMSTANCESó óÌà àThe€appellant€claims€the€trial€judge€should€have€instructed€the€jury€it€couldÏconsider€as€mitigating€factors€the€fact€that€the€appellantððs€co„defendant€received€aÏlife€sentence,€and€that€the€appellant€has€been€a€model€prisoner€and€has€helpedÏothers€inside€and€outside€the€prison.€€The€State€argues€that€neither€the€state€norÏfederal€constitution€require€the€judge€to€instruct€the€jury€on€nonstatutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances.ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€instructed€the€jury€concerning€the€following€statutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances:€1)€the€appellant€has€no€significant€criminal€history;€2)€the€murderÏwas€committed€while€the€appellant€was€under€the€influence€of€extreme€mental€orÏemotional€disturbance;€3)€the€youth€of€the€appellant€at€the€time€of€the€crime;€4)€theÏcapacity€of€the€appellant€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€or€toÏconform€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law€was€substantially€impaired€as€aÏresult€of€mental€disease€or€defect€or€intoxication€which€was€insufficient€to€establishÏa€defense€as€a€matter€of€law€but€which€substantially€affected€his€judgment€throughÏthe€ingestion€of€drugs;€and€5)€any€other€mitigating€evidence€which€is€raised€by€theÏevidence.€€The€judge€also€instructed€the€jury€on€the€following€nonstatutoryÏcircumstances:€1)€the€appellant€was€an€enterprising€young€man€at€the€time€of€theÏcrime;€2)€the€appellant€has€a€minor€child;€and€3)€the€appellant€is€married.€€The€trialÏjudge€refused,€however,€to€instruct€the€jury€that€Patterson€received€a€life€sentence,Íthe€appellant€has€been€a€model€prisoner,€and€the€appellant€has€helped€othersÏwhile€in€prison.ÌÌÑ , ÑÑ 5 ÑÑ  ÑÑ€3 §u` Ñà àIn€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€the€Supreme€Court€recently€addressed€the€issue€ofÏinstructions€on€nonstatutory€mitigators€under€the€death€penalty€statute€as€amendedÏin€1989.€€Although€the€Court€recognized€that€the€trial€court€is€not€constitutionallyÏmandated€to€instruct€the€jury€on€nonstatutory€mitigating€factors,€the€Court€didÏconstrue€the€1989€amendments,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1)€(Supp.Ï1995),€to€require€the€judge€to€give€the€jury€specifically€requested€instructions€onÏmitigating€circumstances€that€are€raised€by€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2dÏat€29„30.€€In€its€discussion,€however,€the€Court€also€acknowledged€that€under€theÏlaw€as€it€previously€existed,€òòseeóó€ðð€39„13„203(e)€(1982),€there€was€no€statutoryÏprovision€requiring€the€trial€court€to€instruct€the€jury€specifically€on€nonstatutoryÏmitigators:ÌÓÓà8 àà à[T]he€only€mandatory€instructions€with€respect€to€mitigatingÏcircumstances€are€that€those€statutory€circumstances€which€are€raisedÏby€the€evidence€shall€be€expressly€charged,€and€the€jury€must€be€toldÏthat€they€shall€weigh€and€consider€any€other€facts€or€circumstancesÏthat€are€raised€by€the€evidence€that€they€find€to€be€mitigatingÏcircumstances,€in€making€the€determination€of€which€circumstances,Ïaggravating€or€mitigating,€outweigh€the€other.ÌÌÓÓòòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€29€(quoting€òòState€v.€Hartmanóó,€703€S.W.2d€106,€118€(Tenn.Ï1985)).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€268€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.ÏSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€15€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€756€S.W.2d€669,€674€(Tenn.Í1988);€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€718€S.W.2d€241,€249€(Tenn.€1986).ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€in€this€case€instructed€the€jury€on€the€law€governing€mitigatingÏcircumstances€as€amended€in€1989.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1)Ï(Supp.€1995).× ƒC ××  ×€€The€judge€also€instructed€the€jury€on€three€specific€nonstatutoryÏmitigating€factors.€€As€discussed€previously,€the€general€provisions€of€ðð€39„11„112Ïand€the€principles€against€retroactive€application€of€statutes€mandate€that€anÏoffense€committed€under€a€repealed€or€amended€law€shall€be€prosecuted€underÏthat€law,€unless€the€new€law€provides€for€a€lesser€penalty.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,Ï893€S.W.2d€908,€919€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€82€(Tenn.Ï1994).€€The€amendments€to€those€sections€of€the€death€penalty€statute€addressingÏmitigating€circumstances,€however,€do€not€pertain€to€lesser€penalties.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€trial€judge€was€not€compelled€to€instruct€the€jury€on€specificÏnonstatutory€mitigating€factors,€and€should€have€instructed€the€jury€under€the€law€asÏit€existed€at€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€However,€because€theÏinstructions€on€the€several€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€inured€to€theÏbenefit€of€the€appellant,€any€errors€in€the€trial€courtððs€actions€were€harmless.€€òòSeeóóÍòòsupraóó€note€3.€€Furthermore,€because€the€prior€law€did€not€require€the€judge€toÏinstruct€on€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances,€the€trial€judgeððs€refusal€to€instructÏon€the€requested€mitigating€factors€at€issue€here€was€proper.€€This€issue,€therefore,Ïis€without€merit.Ìà àÌò òà@ àEXCLUSION€OF€EVIDENCE€INTRODUCED€AS€MITIGATIONó óÌà àThe€appellant€also€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€by€refusing€to€allow€intoÏevidence€as€mitigation€a€letter€the€appellant€received€from€his€son.€€The€StateÏcontends€the€trial€judge€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€and€that€the€letter€was€notÏevidence€of€mitigation.ÌÌà àIn€the€letter€at€issue,€the€appellantððs€son€writes€how€he€loves€his€father€andÏthat€he€hopes€to€see€him€again€soon.€€The€letter€also€describes€some€of€the€sonððsÏrecent€activities.€€The€State€objected€to€its€introduction€on€the€grounds€that€it€wasÏnot€probative€of€any€issue€and€was€redundant€of€testimony€already€introduced.€ÏThe€trial€court€sustained€the€objection.€€On€appeal,€the€appellant€simply€assertsÏthat€the€letter€is€evidence€of€mitigation€that€should€have€been€before€the€jury.€€TheÏState,€in€response,€claims€that€the€letter€adds€nothing€to€the€evidence€of€theÏappellantððs€son€which€was€already€before€the€jury.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€the€Supreme€Court€reviewed€the€principles€governingÍmitigating€evidence.€€While€the€particular€facts€of€each€case€will€govern€theÏdetermination€of€mitigating€circumstances,€evidence€relating€to€the€appellantððsÏcharacter€or€background€is€considered€relevant€and€admissible€as€mitigation.€ÏòòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€31€(citing€òòBoyde€v.€Californiaóó,€494€U.S.€370,€382€(1990);ÏòòPenry€v.€Lynaughóó,€492€U.S.€302,€319€(1989)).€€Conversely,€evidence€that€does€notÏpertain€to€the€appellantððs€character€or€background€is€not€relevant€and€òòmay€óóbeÏexcluded€by€the€trial€judge.€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòDelo€v.€Lasheyóó,€507€U.S.€272€(1993);€òòLockettÏv.€Ohioóó,€438€U.S.€586,€605€n.12€(1978)).€€ÌÌà àIn€the€case€at€hand,€the€trial€judge€allowed€the€appellant€to€testify€that€heÏhad€a€son€and€that€he€received€a€visit€from€him€every€three€or€four€months.€€TheÏintroduction€of€the€letter€itself,€however,€does€not€depict€anything€additional€aboutÏthe€appellantððs€character.€€The€jury€was€already€aware€that€the€appellant€had€aÏminor€child,€and€the€trial€judge€even€instructed€this€fact€as€a€mitigating€circumstance.€ÏWe€believe€the€letter€is€cumulative€evidence€which€was€properly€excluded.€€ð ðIt€isÏwell€established€in€Tennessee€that€the€decision€to€admit€or€exclude€evidence€is€leftÏto€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge€and€the€judgeððs€decision€will€not€beÏdisturbed€unless€it€has€been€arbitrarily€exercised.ðð€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€872€S.W.2dÏ950,€955€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòidóó.,€(Tenn.€1993)€(citing€òòStateÏv.€Bakeróó,€785€S.W.2d€132,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989);€òòState€v.€Hawkóó,€688ÏS.W.2d€467,€472€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985)).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2dÍ1,€17€(Tenn.€1993)€(citing€òòLockett€v.€Ohioóó,€438€U.S.€586,€604,€n.12,€98€S.Ct.€2954,Ï2965€n.12,€57€L.Ed.2d€973€(1978);€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€632€S.W.2d€542,€548€(Tenn.Ï1982))€(ð ðUnder€either€the€constitution€or€the€[death€penalty]€statute,€however,€theÏcourt€retains€its€traditional€authority€to€exclude€irrelevant€evidence€[in€a€capitalÏsentencing€hearing].ðð)€€Accordingly,€because€the€trial€judge€did€not€abuse€hisÏdiscretion€or€improperly€keep€any€mitigating€evidence€from€the€jury,€this€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àCOMPETENCY€OF€JUROR€FOREPERSONó óÌà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€juror€forepersonððs€inability€to€read€theÏverdict€form€without€the€assistance€of€the€trial€judge€effectively€denied€him€the€right€toÏan€impartial€jury.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€suggests€that€since€the€foreperson€hadÏdifficulty€reading€the€verdict€form€aloud€in€open€court,€she€probably€encounteredÏdifficulty€understanding€the€legal€instructions€contained€in€the€written€charges.€€TheÏState€contends€that€although€the€foreperson€experienced€some€trouble€reading€theÏverdict€form,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€which€indicates€she€could€notÏunderstand€the€spoken€word€of€the€oral€charges€given€by€the€judge.ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€read€the€charges€to€the€jury€in€open€court€before€allowing€themÏto€retire.€€Once€the€jury€returned€from€their€deliberations,€the€following€exchangeÏensued:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌTHE€COURT:€All€right.€€Iððm€going€to€ask€you€to€read€that€for€me€if€youÏwill.€€With€regard€to€the€first€count€of€the€indictment€which€alleges€theÏmurder€of€Patrick€Smith,€what€is€your€verdict?ÌMS.€VALERIE€CLARK:€Life€imprisonment.€€We,€the€jury€„„ÌTHE€COURT:€Will€you€read€it€„„€read€that€for€me?ÌMS.€CLARK:€We,€the€jury€„„€okay€„„€whatððs€that?ÌTHE€COURT:€Unanimously.ÌMS.€CLARK:€Unanimously€determine€that€one€„„ÌTHE€COURT:€Statutory.ÌMS.€CLARK:€Statutory.ÌTHE€COURT:€Aggravating.ÌMS.€CLARK:€Aggravating€„„ÌTHE€COURT:€Circumstances.ÌMS.€CLARK:€Circumstances€has€been€proven€by€the€State€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt.€€We,€the€jury,€therefore,€find€the€sentence€shall€beÏimprisonment€for€life.ÌTHE€COURT:€And,€youððve€each€affixed€your€name€to€that.€€Is€thatÏright?ÌMS.€CLARK:€Right.ÌTHE€COURT:€With€regard€to€the€second€count€of€the€indictment€whichÏalleges€the€death€of€Rosemary€Smith,€what€is€your€verdict?ÌMS.€CLARK:€Punishment€of€death.ÌTHE€COURT:€Will€you€read€that€for€me,€please?ÌMS.€CLARK:€We,€the€jury€„„ÌTHE€COURT:€Unanimously.ÌMS.€CLARK:€Unanimously€find€that€the€following€list€„„€Ìlisting€„„ÌTHE€COURT:€Statutory.ÌMS.€CLARK:€Statutory.ÌTHE€COURT:€Aggravating.ÌMS.€CLARK:€Aggravating.ÌTHE€COURT:€Circumstances.ÌMS.€CLARK:€Circumstances€of€„„ÌTHE€COURT:€Do€you€want€to€list€this€for€me?€€Can€you€read€that,Ïplease?ÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒMS.€CLARK:€The€murder€was€especially€human€„„ÌTHE€COURT:€Heinous.ÌMS.€CLARK:€€„„€heinous€„„ÌTHE€COURT:€Atrocious.ÌMS.€CLARK:€€„„€atrocious,€and€cruel,€in€that€is€involved€„„ÌTHE€COURT:€Torture.ÌMS.€CLARK:€€„„€torture€„„ÌTHE€COURT:€Or€serious€„„ÌMS.€CLARK:€€„„€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€prove€„„ÌTHE€COURT:€€„„€produce€death.ÌMS.€CLARK:€€„„€produce€death.ÌTHE€COURT:€All€right.€€Will€you€continue€to€read?ÌMS.€CLARK:€We,€the€jury€„„ÌTHE€COURT:€Unanimously.ÌMS.€CLARK:€€„„€unanimously€find€that€the€State€has€been€proven€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€the€circumstances€are€„„ÌTHE€COURT:€Statutory.ÌMS.€CLARK:€€„„€statutory€„„ÌTHE€COURT:€Aggravating.ÌMS.€CLARK:€€„„€aggravating€circumstance€or€circumstances€so€to€list€aboveÏoutweigh€any€other€„„ÌTHE€COURT:€Mitigating.ÌMS.€CLARK:€€„„€mitigating€circumstances.€€Therefore,€we,€the€jury,€unanimously€findÏthat€the€punishment€for€the€defendant,€Ronnie€„„ÌTHE€COURT:€Cauthern.ÌMS.€CLARK:€€„„€Cauthern€shall€be€death.ÌTHE€COURT:€Be€seated€please.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€Supreme€Court€dealt€with€this€very€issue€in€òòKirkendoll€v.€Stateóó,€281ÏS.W.2d€243€(Tenn.€1955),€a€case€wherein€the€death€penalty€was€affirmed.€€TheÏCourt€held€it€was€not€error€for€the€trial€judge€to€accept€a€juror€who€could€not€read€theÏwritten€charges€given€by€the€court.€€òòId.óó€at€255.€€The€Supreme€Court€reasoned€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà àWe€think€though€that€other€jurors€if€necessary€could€read€this€to€that€juror€whoÏcould€not€read€while€in€the€jury€room.€€The€purpose€of€having€the€written€chargeÏbefore€them€.€.€.€was€to€prevent€and€keep€the€jury€from€having€to€keep€runningÏbackward€and€forward€into€court€getting€the€court€to€recharge€them€on€various€andÏsundry€little€things€that€they€might€have€forgotten.€€It€seems€to€us€that€as€long€asÏthis€written€charge€is€in€the€jury€room€that€there€are€others€there€who€can€read€thatÏthis€would€satisfy€that€question.€€Consequently€this€assignment€must€be€overruled.ÌòòId.óó€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àWe€believe€that€the€holding€and€reasoning€in€òòKirkendollóó€is€dispositive€of€theÏissue€before€us€here.€€The€appellant€has€failed€to€point€to€anything€in€the€record,Ïapart€from€the€difficultly€in€the€reading€of€the€verdict€form,€which€suggests€Ms.€ClarkÏdid€not€understand€the€oral€charges€given€by€the€judge.€€Nor€has€the€appellantÏdemonstrated€that€he€suffered€any€prejudice€as€a€result€of€the€Ms.€Clarkððs€readingÏskills.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àINDIVIDUAL€AND€SEQUESTERED€VOIR€DIREó óÌà àNext,€the€appellant€claims€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€the€appellantððsÏmotion€for€individual€and€sequestered€voir€dire.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€contendsÏthe€prospective€jurors€may€have€been€aware€of€the€facts€of€this€case€prior€to€theÏhearing.€€The€State€contends€the€trial€court€acted€appropriately.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€filed€a€pre„trial€motion€requesting€permission€to€conductÏindividual€and€sequestered€voir€dire€of€the€prospective€jurors.€€The€trial€court€deniedÏthe€motion.€€During€the€voir€dire,€the€prosecutor€asked,€among€others,€the€followingÏquestions:ÌÓÓÌà8 àHave€any€of€you€heard€or€read€anything€at€all€about€this€case?Ìà8 àÌà8 àHave€any€of€you€heard€anyone€express€an€opinion€about€whatÏought€to€happen€in€this€case?Ìà8 àÌà8 àThere€will€be€testimony€that€this€crime€occurred€in€Clarksville,ÏTennessee.€€This€is€a€case,€by€the€way,€about€two€Army€nurses,€aÏhusband,€Patrick€Smith,€and€his€wife,€Rosemary.€€This€crime€occurredÏeither€on€the€night€of€January€the€8th,€1987€or€the€early€morning€hoursÏof€January€the€9th.€€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Smith€„„€Captain€Smith€and€CaptainÏSmith€were€captains€in€the€Army€„„€were€at€home€asleep€when€twoÏdefendants,€Ronald€Cauthern€and€another€man,€broke€into€their€home,Ïattacking€both€of€them,€raped€Mrs.€Smith,€garroted€„„€thatððs€a€term€youÏmay€not€know€the€meaning€of€right€now,€but€if€youððre€chosen€as€aÏjuror€you€will€before€this€case€is€over€„„€and€left€them€both€dead.€€Now,Ïhave€any€of€you€ever€heard€anything€about€this€fact€situation?Ìà8 àÌà8 àIs€there€anybody€here€who€doesnððt€think€they€can€give€the€defendantÏa€fair€trial?ÌÌÓÓThe€prospective€jurors€all€responded€negatively€to€each€of€these€questions.ÌÌà àIndividual€and€sequestered€voir€dire€is€required€only€when€there€is€aÏð ðsignificant€possibilityðð€that€the€prospective€jurors€have€been€exposed€to€potentiallyÏprejudicial€material€before€the€trial.€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€247€(Tenn.Ï1993);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€65€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€decision€of€whether€toÏgrant€individual€and€sequestered€voir€dire€of€prospective€jurors€lies€within€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€judge,€and€that€decision€will€not€be€overturned€absent€a€findingÏof€ð ðmanifest€error.ðð€€òòHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€247„48;€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€65.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€in€the€case€at€hand€any€prejudiceÏresulting€from€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€motion.€€All€of€the€prospective€jurorsÏindicated€they€had€no€knowledge€of€the€facts€or€circumstances€of€this€case.€€TheÍfact€that€the€jury€knew€the€appellant€was€already€convicted€of€first€degree€murder,Ïcontrary€to€the€appellantððs€claim,€is€irrelevant€to€this€issue.€€The€nature€of€theÏproceedings€in€a€capital€case€necessarily€creates€a€situation€where€the€sentencingÏjury€will€always€know€the€guilt€determination.€€The€fact€that€this€was€a€resentencingÏhearing€does€not€present€any€substantial€distinctions,€especially€when€the€juryÏwas€unaware€of€the€prior€proceedings.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€didÏnot€abuse€its€discretion€in€denying€the€appellantððs€motion.ÌÌò òÇà@ àMERCY€INSTRUCTIONó óÌà àThe€appellant€claims€the€trial€court€should€have€instructed€the€jury€that€it€couldÏrecommend€mercy€when€rendering€its€sentence.€€The€Supreme€Court€hasÏcontinually€upheld€the€trial€courtððs€decision€in€this€respect.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885ÏS.W.2d€797,€813„14€(Tenn€1994);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€269€n.6€(Tenn.Ï1994);€òòState€v.€Hartmanóó,€703€S.W.2d€106,€119€(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638ÏS.W.2d€342,€366€(Tenn.€1982).€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àEVIDENCE€OF€THE€UNDERLYING€FELONIESó óÌà àThe€appellant€also€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motion€toÏprevent€the€State€from€introducing€evidence€of€the€underlying€burglary€and€rape.€€HeÏcontends€this€evidence€did€not€relate€to€either€the€aggravating€or€mitigatingÏcircumstances€and€thus€was€improperly€before€the€jury.€€In€response,€the€StateÏasserts€that€the€trial€court€acted€appropriately.ÌÌà àPrior€to€trial,€the€appellant€filed€a€motion€to€prevent€the€State€from€introducingÏevidence€of€the€underlying€burglary€and€rape.€€The€trial€judge€denied€the€motion,Ïstating:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àThis€was€all€evidence€that€was€originally€introduced€at€theÏoriginal€trial€„„€at€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial,€and€I€think€the€jury€is€entitledÏto€all€the€evidence€from€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€in€making€theirÏdetermination€as€to€what€the€proper€punishment€is.€€I€think€thatððs€theÍlaw.€€I€donððt€think€that€the€rape€itself€could€be€an€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€but€evidence€of€the€rape€could€go€to€the€proof€of€theÏaggravating€circumstance€that€youððre€alleging,€and€for€that€reasonÏthatððs€why€Iððm€going€to€allow€the€introduction.Ìà àÌÓÓà àIn€his€argument€before€the€Court,€the€appellant€seems€to€suggest€that€theÏSupreme€Courtððs€holding€in€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1992)Ïcontrols€this€issue.€€òòMiddlebrooksóó€stands€for€the€proposition€that€the€State€cannotÏrely€upon€the€underlying€felony€in€support€of€the€aggravating€circumstance€that€theÏmurder€was€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€a€felony€when€the€appellant€wasÏconvicted€of€felony€murder.€€òòId.óó€at€346.€€In€the€instant€case,€however,€the€StateÏsought€to€prove€the€existence€of€only€one€aggravating€circumstance,€that€theÏmurder€was€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel.€€Thus,€there€is€no€duplication€problem€likeÏthat€encountered€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àMoreover,€in€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€270€(Tenn.€1994),€theÏSupreme€Court,€while€conducting€a€òòMiddlebrooksóó€harmless€error€analysis,€stated:€Ïð ðA€sentencing€jury€may€properly€hear€evidence€regarding€the€circumstances€of€theÏoffense.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€925€(Tenn.€1994).€€As€the€trialÏcourt€implied,€the€jury€must€be€allowed€to€consider€the€circumstances€surroundingÏthe€murder€in€order€to€appropriately€determine€the€existence€of€the€heinous,Ïatrocious,€or€cruel€aggravating€circumstance.€€The€circumstances€surrounding€theÏmurder€include€evidence€of€the€separate€felonies.€€The€trial€court€ruled,€however,€thatÍthe€State€could€not€inform€the€jury€that€the€appellant€had€been€convicted€of€burglaryÏand€rape.€€Because€we€believe€the€trial€court€acted€appropriately€in€this€regard,€weÏfind€no€merit€to€this€issue.ÌÌò òà@ àEXCLUSION€OF€PROSPECTIVE€JURORó óÌà àThe€appellant€maintains€that€the€trial€judge€committed€reversible€error€byÏexcusing€a€prospective€juror€because€of€his€perceived€views€on€capitalÏpunishment.€€During€voir€dire,€a€prospective€juror€informed€the€prosecutor€that€he€didÏnot€think€he€could€ð ðlive€withðð€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€€Subsequently,€theÏjudge€asked€the€prospective€juror€if€he€could€follow€the€law.€€He€responded€byÏstating€that€ð ðthe€Lord€makes€the€decision€on€death,ðð€and€that€he€did€not€think€heÏcould€impose€the€penalty.€€The€judge€thereafter€excused€the€man€from€the€jury.ÌÌà àThe€applicable€standard€for€determining€whether€a€juror€was€properlyÏexcused€for€cause€because€of€his€beliefs€on€the€death€penalty€was€delineated€inÏòòWainwright€v.€Wittóó,€469€U.S.€412,€424,€105€S.Ct.€844,€852,€83€L.Ed.2d€841€(1985),Ïand€is€as€follows:€€"whether€the€juror's€views€would€'prevent€or€substantially€impairÏthe€performance€of€his€duties€as€a€juror€in€accordance€with€his€instructions€and€hisÏoath.'"€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Alleyóó,€776€S.W.2d€506,€518€(Tenn.€1989)€(Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€adopts€òòWainwrightóó€standard).€€Furthermore,€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏheld€that€"this€standard€does€not€require€that€a€juror's€bias€be€proved€withÍ'unmistakable€clarity.'"€òòWainwrightóó,€469€U.S.€at€424,€105€S.Ct.€at€852.€€The€CourtÏalso€noted€that€"deference€must€be€paid€to€the€trial€judge€who€sees€and€hears€theÏjurors."€€òòId.óó€at€426,€105€S.Ct.€at€853.ÌÌà àWe€agree€that€the€prospective€jurorððs€answers€suggesting€that€he€could€notÏimpose€the€death€penalty€"would€'prevent€or€substantially€impair€the€performance€ofÏhis€duties€as€a€juror€in€accordance€with€his€instructions€and€his€oath.'"€òòId.óó€at€424,Ï105€S.Ct.€at€852.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€915„16€(Tenn.€1994).€ÏAlthough€this€determination€might€not€be€"unmistakably€clear,"€it€need€not€be.€ÏMoreover,€as€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held,€great€deference€shouldÏbe€given€to€the€trial€judge,€who€is€"left€with€the€definite€impression€that€a€prospectiveÏjuror€would€be€unable€to€faithfully€and€impartially€apply€the€law."€€òòWainwrightóó,€469ÏU.S.€at€426,€105€S.Ct.€at€853.€€The€trial€judge's€findings€"shall€be€accorded€aÏpresumption€of€correctness€and€the€burden€shall€rest€upon€the€appellant€toÏestablish€by€convincing€evidence€that€[those€findings€were]€erroneous."€€òòState€v.ÏAlleyóó,€776€S.W.2d€506,€518€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€appellant€has€failed€to€meet€hisÏburden€in€this€case.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€excusing€the€prospective€juror€because€ofÏhis€religious€beliefs€further€interferes€with€the€appellant's€constitutional€rights.€€OurÏSupreme€Court€has€ruled€that€because€a€juror's€"'views€on€capital€punishment€mayÍhave€had€a€religious€foundation€does€not€necessarily€transform€the€test€mandatedÏby€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€[òòWainwright€v.€Wittóó]€into€religious€tests€for€.€.Ï.€[constitutional€purposes].'"€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€789€S.W.2d€545,€547€(Tenn.€1990)Ï(1990)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€727€S.W.2d€945,€949€(Tenn.€1987)).€€Accordingly,ÏMr.€Williamsðð€opposition€to€the€death€penalty,€though€possibly€based€on€religion,Ïappropriately€rendered€him€unfit€as€a€juror.€€The€trial€judge€acted€properly,€and€thisÏissue,€therefore,€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àADMISSION€OF€APPELLANTððS€STATEMENTSó óÌà àThe€appellant,€relying€on€his€brief€submitted€during€the€initial€direct€appeal€ofÏthis€case,€argues€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowed€the€introduction€of€theÏappellantððs€statements€into€evidence.€€The€Supreme€Court€previously€addressedÏthis€issue€on€the€original€appeal€of€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€778€S.W.2dÏ39€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€remand€of€this€case€was€based€upon€the€CourtððsÏdetermination€that€a€portion€of€the€appellantððs€statement€was€erroneouslyÏintroduced.€€òòId.óó€at€47.€€During€the€resentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€followed€theÏSupreme€Courtððs€mandate€and€excluded€the€objectionable€portions€of€theÏstatement.€€Accordingly,€because€the€Supreme€Court€has€already€addressed€thisÏissue,€the€appellantððs€argument€must€fail.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓCONSTITUTIONALITY€OF€THE€DEATH€PENALTYó óÌÓ  Óà àFinally,€the€appellant€asserts€the€death€penalty€is€cruel€and€unusualÏpunishment€in€violation€of€the€state€and€federal€constitutions.€€On€direct€appeal,€theÏSupreme€Court€rejected€this€argument.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€778€S.W.2d€39,€47Ï(Tenn.€1989).€€Likewise,€the€Court€has€repeatedly€upheld€the€constitutionality€of€theÏdeath€penalty€in€the€face€of€similar€challenges.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2dÏ908€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,Ï875€S.W.2d€253€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.ÏBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589€(Tenn.€1990);ÏòòState€v.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239Ï(Tenn.€1989).€€Accordingly,€this€argument€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌà@ àò òCONCLUSIONó óÌà àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€issues€and€the€record€before€us€as€mandatedÏby€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„206(b)€and€(c),€and€for€the€reasonsÏstated€herein,€we€affirm€the€appellantððs€sentence€of€death.€€We€conclude€that€theÏsentence€was€not€imposed€in€an€arbitrary€fashion,€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððsÏfinding€of€the€aggravating€circumstance,€and€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€findingÏthat€the€aggravating€circumstance€outweighs€any€mitigating€circumstances.€ÏMoreover,€a€comparative€proportionality€review,€considering€both€the€circumstancesÏof€the€crime€and€the€nature€of€the€appellant,€convinces€us€that€the€sentence€ofÍdeath€is€neither€excessive€nor€disproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similarÏcases.× ƒD ××  ×ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIAL€JUDGE›