ÿWPCÄ  # ÐUNÛ %) 0(/bWw@_4Ÿ³Â 0JÊ 0T 0^h 0hÆ 0r. 0|  0† 0¢ 1u2 0d§U> U*Iv~svÓñ ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- j Dk l m n Do p q r Hs äzz!3|xs 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(ArialPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€u1XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌJANUARY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌ€ÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9511„CR„00343Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€ARTHUR€T.€BENNETT,ó óÌò òTERRENCE€L.€DAVIS,à àà à)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(FIRST€DEGREE€MURDER)Ìó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òLESLIE€I.€BALLINà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óAttorney€at€Law€à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌò òMARK€A.€MESLERà àà àà àWILLIAM€DAVID€BRIDGERSÌó óAttorney€at€Law€à àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌBallin,€Ballin€&€Fishman,€P.C.à àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ200€Jefferson€Avenueà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌSuite€1250ÌMemphis,€TN€38103à àà àà àò òJOHN€W.€PIEROTTI€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òTHOMAS€D.€HENDERSONó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà à€à àà àà àà àà àò òJENNIFER€NICHOLSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103„1947ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant,€Terrence€Davis,€appeals€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€He€was€convicted€by€a€jury€ofÏfirst€degree€murder€in€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court,€and€sentenced€to€lifeÏimprisonment.€€In€addition€to€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,ÏDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€by:€(1)€refusing€toÏsuppress€the€statement€given€by€Defendant€on€November€8,€1993;€(2)€refusingÏto€permit€Defendant€to€introduce€into€evidence€a€letter€written€by€the€victimððsÏmother;€(3)€allowing€certain€photographs€of€the€victim€to€be€admitted€intoÏevidence;€(4)€allowing€opinion€testimony€of€a€non„expert€witness€regardingÏdiscipline€to€be€admitted€into€evidence;€(5)€requiring€Defendant€to€provide€to€theÏState€an€investigative€report€prepared€by€a€defense€witness;€and€(6)Ïadministering€the€oath€to€the€grand€jury€foreperson€in€the€juryððs€presence€duringÏthe€trial.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àÌà@ àI.€€€€€òòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEóóÌÌà àWhenever€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€at€trial€is€questioned,€theÏstandard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€toÏthe€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elementsÏof€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€433€U.S.€307,Ï319€(1979).€€This€court€may€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.ÏCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitledÏto€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€ÏòòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€ÌÌà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€andÏvalue€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€theÏevidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754ÏS.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1987).€ÏA€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnesses€andÏresolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476Ï(Tenn.€1973).€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocenceÏand€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€thisÏcourt€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returnedÏby€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòGraceóó,Ï493€S.W.2d€at€476.ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€the€victimððs€death,€the€Defendant€was€living€with€the€victim,ÏSantana€Goodwin,€the€victimððs€mother,€Valerie€Goodwin,€and€a€two„month€oldÏchild,€Terence€Davis,€Jr.€€While€Terence€Davis,€Jr.€was€the€child€of€theÏDefendant€and€Ms.€Goodwin,€the€Defendant€was€not€the€biological€father€of€theÏvictim.€€During€the€Stateððs€proof,€the€evidence€presented€was€that€on€NovemberÏ6,€1993,€an€ambulance€€was€dispatched€to€Defendantððs€home.€€The€emergencyÏmedical€technician€who€arrived€on€the€scene,€Janet€Kuhn,€testified€as€to€theÏvictimððs€condition€upon€her€arrival€at€4190€Raleigh€Woods,€Apartment€3.€€WhenÏKuhn€first€arrived,€the€Defendant€was€holding€the€victim€in€his€arms€and€toldÏKuhn€that€the€victim€fell€and€hit€her€head€on€the€fireplace.€€The€victim€was€cool€toÏthe€touch€and€had€no€vital€signs.€€After€attempting€to€resuscitate€the€victim€usingÏvarious€methods€of€CPR,€intubation,€and€medication€and€receiving€no€responseÏfrom€the€victim,€Kuhn€transported€the€victim€to€LeBonheur€Hospital.€€On€the€wayÏto€the€hospital,€she€noted€that€the€victimððs€abdomen€was€very€tight€and€swollen,Ïand€that€she€was€covered€in€bruises€with€a€hematoma€on€her€forehead€and€aÏbusted€lower€lip.ÌÌà àAfter€the€victim€arrived€at€LeBonheur€Hospital,€she€was€treated€by€aÏpediatric€emergency€room€physician,€Mary€McGinty.€€The€victim€was€cold€uponÏarrival,€with€no€pulse€or€blood€pressure€and€a€distended€abdomen.€€€She€wasÏobserved€to€be€a€twenty„two€month€old€female.€€While€the€victimððs€heart€wasÍstill€giving€electrical€impulses,€there€was€no€response€to€the€various€resuscitationÏtechniques€administered€to€her.€€€Dr.€McGinty€testified€that€the€victim€was,€for€allÏpractical€purposes,€dead€when€she€arrived€at€the€hospital.€€The€victim€wasÏfound€to€have€marks€on€her€face,€neck€and€abdomen,€as€well€as€bruises,Ïbroken€blood€vessels€and€a€cut€on€her€lower€lip.€€The€victimððs€stools€containedÏboth€old€and€new€blood,€and€the€tube€used€in€an€attempt€to€resuscitate€theÏvictim€contained€blood€from€the€victimððs€abdomen.€€While€Dr.€McGinty€did€not€listÏa€cause€of€death,€she€was€suspicious€of€abuse€immediately€andÏrecommended€an€autopsy€be€performed.ÌÌà àJames€Madden,€a€crime€scene€investigation€officer€of€the€Memphis€PoliceÏDepartment,€was€called€to€LeBonheur€Hospital€to€investigate€the€victimððs€deathÏand€to€œ€take›€œ€photographs›€of€œ€her›€body.€€Later,€Madden€œ€went›€to€the€œ€victimððs›Ïhome€to€investigate€and€take€photographs.€€While€at€the€home,€he€took€photosÏof€a€paper€towel€in€the€kitchen€trash€can€with€what€appeared€to€be€bloodÏspots,€a€sheet€with€what€appeared€to€be€blood€spots,€the€bathroom€with€theÏvictimððs€house€shoes€lying€in€the€floor,€lumps€of€hair€lying€on€the€living€room€floor,Ïand€the€fireplace€where€the€Defendant€said€€the€victim€fell€and€hit€her€head.€ÏMadden€then€collected€some€of€the€items€he€photographed,€including€the€paperÏtowel,€€shoes,€sheet€and€lumps€of€hair.€€During€cross„examination,€MaddenÏadmitted€that€he€observed€fresh€bruises€on€the€victimððs€lips,€bruises€on€her€leftÍjaw,€marks€on€her€forehead,€discolored€spots€on€her€neck€and€bruises€on€herÏside€when€he€photographed€her€at€the€hospital.€€He€did€not€observe€any€bloodÏon€the€fireplace€when€he€was€investigating€the€scene.ÌÌà àValerie€Goodwin,€the€victimððs€mother,€testified€that€the€Defendant€was€notÏworking€during€the€week€of€November€1st€through€November€8th€and€cared€forÏthe€victim€whenever€she€was€working€at€Cracker€Barrel€during€the€eveningÏhours.€Just€prior€to€November€6,€1993,€Goodwin€observed€a€dark€circle€ofÏbruises€on€the€victimððs€jaw.€€When€she€asked€the€Defendant€what€happenedÏto€the€victim,€€the€Defendant€told€her€that€the€victim€fell€outside€while€playing.ÌÌà àOn€the€evening€of€November€6,€1993,€Goodwin€was€called€in€to€work€atÏthe€Cracker€Barrel.€€While€working,€she€called€the€Defendant€who€told€her€thatÏthe€victim€was€sleeping.€€Later,€the€Defendant€called€and€told€her€that€the€victimÏfell,€was€not€breathing€and€an€ambulance€was€on€its€way€to€the€apartment.€ÏAfter€getting€a€ride€from€one€of€her€neighbors,€Goodwin€arrived€at€the€apartmentÏin€time€to€follow€the€ambulance€to€LeBonheur€Hospital.€€While€in€the€waitingÏroom,€the€Defendant€told€her€that€the€victim€fell€after€tripping€on€house€shoes€andÏhit€her€head€on€the€fireplace.€€Goodwin€further€testified€that€both€she€and€theÏDefendant€sometimes€spanked€the€victim€on€either€her€hands,€legs,€or€bottom.€ÏOn€cross„examination,€€she€admitted€that€she€never€witnessed€the€DefendantÍabuse€the€victim€and€told€others€that€she€could€not€believe€the€Defendant€wouldÏhave€done€something€like€this.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€interviewed€for€the€first€time€on€November€7,€1993€byÏRonald€Wilkinson,€assigned€to€the€Homicide€Bureau€at€the€Memphis€PoliceÏDepartment.€€Wilkinson€testified€that€Defendant€told€him€that€€the€victim€trippedÏand€fell€on€the€fireplace.€€The€victim€stopped€breathing,€so€the€Defendant€beganÏadministering€CPR.€€ÌÌà àRichard€Roleson,€also€an€officer€of€the€Homicide€Bureau,€€testified€that€heÏinterviewed€the€Defendant€for€the€second€time€on€November€8,€1993,€and€theyÏwent€over€the€events€of€November€6,€1993€several€times.€€During€thisÏdiscussion,€the€€Defendant€changed€his€story€several€times,€but€ultimatelyÏadmitted€that€on€November€3,€1993,€€he€whipped€the€victim€after€she€hadÏbroken€a€glass.€€When€the€victim€slid€out€of€the€Defendantððs€grasp,€he€hit€herÏuntil€she€got€still€and€grabbed€her€by€the€back€of€the€neck.€€The€Defendant€saidÏthe€victim€fell,€and€he€kicked€her€in€her€left€side.€€In€his€statement,€the€DefendantÏadmitted€to€getting€€out€of€control.€€The€Defendant€again€spanked€the€victim€onÏNovember€6,€1993,€the€day€of€the€victimððs€death.€€On€cross„examination,ÏRoleson€admitted€that€he€told€Defendant€that€no€one€had€been€electrocuted€inÍTennessee€since€1962€or€1963,€but€that€the€State€might€crank€it€up€again€anyÏday.ÌÌà àThe€autopsy€of€the€victim€was€performed€by€a€pediatric€forensicÏpathologist,€Violette€Hnilica.€€She€testified€that€there€were€various€abrasions€andÏcontusions€on€the€victimððs€twenty„five€(25)€pound€body,€as€well€as€a€tongueÏhemorrhage.€€The€fleshy€tissue€between€the€lip€and€the€gum€was€torn.€€CertainÏinjuries€she€observed€were€not€consistent€with€a€fall,€but€were€consistent€withÏbeing€hit€at€skin€surface€from€some€other€angle.€€The€victimððs€lower€abdominalÏregion€had€multiple€contusions,€with€nineteen€(19)€separate€contusions€on€theÏtrunk€area€of€the€victimððs€body.€€The€contusions€in€the€lower€left€chest€regionÏwere€of€a€consistent€pattern.€€In€her€internal€exam,€Dr.€Hnilica€testified€that€thereÏwas€old€blood€in€the€abdomen,€brownish€and€disintegrating.€€This€was€unusualÏas€there€is€no€free€blood€in€a€healthy€abdomen.€€€€The€old€blood€in€theÏabdomen€was€indicative€that€the€victim€sustained€the€injuries€approximatelyÏthree€(3)€days€prior€to€her€death.€€€All€the€victimððs€left€organs€had€contusions.€ÏShe€had€five€broken€ribs.€€These€injuries€were€of€a€pattern€consistent€with€theÏinside€part€of€the€heel€of€a€shoe.€€Dr.€Hnilica€found€over€fifty€(50)€impact€sites€onÏthe€child.€€The€liver€was€completely€lacerated€from€the€abdomen,€which€wasÏconsistent€with€compressive€frontal€pressure€to€the€body.€While€the€liverÍlaceration€would€normally€be€fatal€in€and€of€itself,€in€Dr.€Hnilicaððs€opinion,€theÏvictim€died€of€multiple€blunt€force€injuries.ÌÌà àThe€defense€offered€various€witnesses€who€testified€as€to€seeing€ValerieÏGoodwin€spank€the€victim€and€grab€other€friendsðð€children€on€prior€occasions.€ÏSome€defense€witnesses€testified€that€the€Defendant€was€not€at€home€on€theÏday€of€November€3,€1993,€alone€with€the€victim,€but€that€the€Valerie€GoodwinÏwas€there€with€the€victim€on€that€date.€€The€Defendant€did€not€testify€at€trial.ÌÌà àAccording€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„15„402,€a€person€isÏguilty€of€aggravated€child€abuse€when€such€abuse€results€in€serious€bodilyÏinjury€to€the€child.€€The€offense€of€child€abuse€is€defined€as€ð ð€.€.€.€any€personÏwho€knowingly,€other€than€by€accidental€means,€treats€a€child€under€eighteenÏ(18)€years€of€age€in€such€a€manner€as€to€inflict€injury€or€neglects€such€a€child€soÏas€to€adversely€affect€the€childððs€health€and€welfare€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„15„401(a).€€€Under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„202(a)(2),€firstÏdegree€murder€is€the€killing€of€another€in€the€perpetration€of€or€the€attempt€toÏperpetrate€aggravated€child€abuse.ÌÌà àBy€his€own€statement,€Defendant€admitted€committing€such€acts€ofÏabuse€which€ultimately€resulted€in€the€death€of€the€victim.€€Furthermore,€theÍtestimony€of€Dr.€Hnilica,€the€coroner€who€performed€the€autopsy€of€the€victim,Ïconfirms€that€the€victim€died€of€multiple€blunt€trauma€injuries,€consistent€with€theÏDefendantððs€statement€that€he€kicked€the€victim€and€the€pattern€of€injuryÏconsistent€with€a€shoe€on€the€victimððs€left€side.€€Therefore,€there€is€sufficientÏevidence€in€the€record€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€Defendant€committedÏfirst€degree€murder€in€the€perpetration€of€aggravated€child€abuse€resulting€in€theÏdeath€of€the€victim.€€The€Defendant€has€not€met€his€burden€of€proof€regardingÏthe€insufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àII.€€€€€òòADMISSION€OF€DEFENDANTððS€€STATEMENTóóÌÌà àThe€next€issue€the€Defendant€raises€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusingÏto€suppress€his€statement€of€November€8,€1993,€in€which€he€admitted€that€heÏð ðgot€out€of€controlðð€and€kicked€the€victim€in€her€left€side€on€November€3,€1993.€ÏThe€€trial€judge€found€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€the€statement€wasÏvoluntary€and€not€due€to€any€coercion.€€ÌÌà àThe€party€which€prevails€in€the€trial€court€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€inferences€drawn€fromÏthat€evidence€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearing.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928ÍS.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€trial€courtððs€findings€will€be€upheld€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àIt€is€the€defendantððs€duty€to€have€prepared€an€adequate€record€in€order€toÏallow€a€meaningful€review€on€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b);€òòState€v.€Bunchóó,Ï646€S.W.2d€158,€160€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€755€S.W.2d€833,€836Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€While€the€Defendant€failed€to€include€the€entire€recordÏof€the€suppression€hearing€as€part€of€the€record€on€appeal,€€an€ample€accountÏof€the€proceedings€were€included€with€the€Defendantððs€appeal€for€this€Court€toÏmake€a€fair€and€meaningful€evaluation€of€such€proceedings.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï24(b)òò;óó€œòòseeóó›€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€560„61€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€a€statement€is€made€voluntarily,€this€court€mustÏlook€to€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€confession,€and€theÏstandard€is€whether€ð ðthe€behavior€of€the€stateððs€law€enforcement€officials€wasÏsuch€as€to€overbear€petitionerððs€will€to€resist€and€bring€about€confessions€notÏfreely€self„determined.ðð€€òòState€v.€Kellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€726,€728€(Tenn.€1980).€€In€theÏcase€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€Defendant€was€told€after€being€read€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€byÏRoleson,€the€police€officer€interrogating€him,€that€the€possible€penalties€for€firstÏdegree€murder€were€either€death€or€life€imprisonment.€€The€police€officer€furtherÏinformed€Defendant€that€the€death€penalty€had€not€been€carried€out€inÍTennessee€since€1962€or€1963,€but€that€it€might€start€being€carried€out€at€anyÏtime.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€refers€to€an€earlier€case€which€was€cited€in€òòKellyóó€in€whichÏthe€defendant€was€promised€by€a€police€officer€that€if€he€were€to€confess,€theÏprosecution€would€not€ask€for€the€ð ðelectric€chair.ðð€€œòòSeeóó›€òòFord€v.€Stateóó,€201€S.W.2dÏ539€(Tenn.€1947).€€The€statement€the€officer€made€to€Defendant€isÏdistinguishable€in€that€such€a€statement€regarding€the€possible€penalties€couldÏnot€be€interpreted€as€a€promise€of€leniency€in€exchange€for€the€DefendantððsÏconfession.€€In€fact,€the€officer€made€no€assurances€regarding€the€probableÏpunishment€for€the€Defendant€if€he€were€to€be€convicted.€€The€totality€of€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€Defendantððs€confession€were€not€such€thatÏwould€overbear€the€Defendantððs€will.€€Great€deference€is€given€to€a€trial€judgeððsÏdetermination€that€a€confession€was€given€voluntarily€and€without€coercionÏbecause€the€trial€judge€sees€and€hears€the€witnesses€while€appellate€courtsÏexamine€only€a€ð ðcold€record.ðð€€òòLowe€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€239,€241€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1979).€€The€trial€judge€found€that€the€Defendantððs€confession€was€notÏcoerced,€and€that€the€statement€the€officer€told€to€Defendant€regarding€theÏpossible€punishment€did€not€make€Defendant€incriminate€himself€in€hisÏstatement.€€A€careful€review€of€the€record€in€this€case€fails€to€convince€us€thatÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€judge.ÌÇà@ àIII.€€€€€òòLETTER€WRITTEN€BY€VICTIMððS€MOTHERóóÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€allow€a€letterÏwritten€by€the€victimððs€mother€to€be€admitted€into€evidence.€€It€is€well€establishedÏthat€the€decision€to€admit€or€exclude€evidence€is€left€to€the€sound€discretion€of€theÏtrial€judge€and€the€trial€courtððs€decision€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€it€has€beenÏarbitrarily€exercised.€€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€785€S.W.2d€132,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1989);€òòState€v.€Hawkóó,€688€S.W.2d€467,€472€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€ÌÌà àThe€letter€which€Defendant€sought€to€have€admitted€into€evidence€read:Ìà8 àTo€Whom€it€May€Concern:ÌÓÓà8 àI€am€writing€this€letter€asking€for€leniency€in€the€matter€of€Mr.ÏœTerrence›€LeRoy€Davis.€€I€am€the€mother€of€the€deceased.€€I€feelÏthis€whole€case€is€being€blown€out€of€proportion.€€I€donððt€feel€it€is€aÏmurder€case.€€I€feel€that€what€happened€if€anything€wasÏaccidental.€€I€would€greatly€appreciate€this€if€the€Court€took€this€intoÏconsideration.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àThanks,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à/s/€Ms.€Valerie€GoodwinÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€letter€from€Valerie€Goodwin€deals€with€two€subjects,€leniency€andÏguilt€or€innocence,€respectively.€€Any€language€in€the€letter€regarding€leniency€isÏirrelevant€as€to€guilt€or€innocence€and€instead€is€relevant€to€punishment.€ÍTherefore,€the€contents€of€the€letter€regarding€leniency€are€irrelevant€and€wereÏcorrectly€excluded€from€trial.€ÌÌà àDuring€the€trial,€Defendant€called€Valerie€Goodwin€to€the€stand€as€hisÏown€witness,€but€no€evidence€was€introduced€to€show€that€she€had€personalÏknowledge€of€the€matters€surrounding€the€victimððs€death€on€the€night€ofÏNovember€6,€1993.€€The€witnessððs€opinions€about€whether€the€victimððs€deathÏwas€an€accident€are€irrelevant.€€Furthermore,€Goodwin€was€allowed€to€testifyÏregarding€her€opinion€that€ð ð[she]€could€not€believe€[Defendant]€could€doÏsomething€like€that,ðð€and€ð ðif€anything€had€happened€[to€the€victim],€it€was€anÏaccident.ðð€€Defendant€argues€that€the€letter€the€trial€court€ruled€inadmissible€wasÏnecessary€for€his€theory€of€defense.€The€letter€would€only€be€cumulative€to€herÏstatements€already€introduced€into€evidence€by€the€Defendant.€€TheseÏstatements€were€heard€by€the€jury€and€the€trial€judge,€thereby€allowing€theÏDefendant€to€provide€evidence€in€the€record€of€his€theory€of€defense.€€This€issueÏhas€no€merit.ÌÌà@ àIV.€€€€€òòADMISSION€OF€PHOTOGRAPHS€OF€THE€VICTIMóóÌÌà àDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€the€State€toÏintroduce€into€evidence€certain€photographs€of€the€victim,€including€one€photo€€ofÍthe€victim€when€she€was€alive€and€several€autopsy€photographs.€€TheÏadmissibility€of€photographs€is€in€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and,Ïabsent€a€showing€of€clear€abuse,€this€Court€is€not€to€interfere€with€the€trialÏcourtððs€exercise€of€that€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€477Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€A€photo€must€be€relevant€to€an€issue€that€the€jury€must€decideÏand€the€probative€value€of€the€photograph€must€outweigh€any€prejudicial€effectÏthat€it€may€have€upon€the€trier€of€fact€before€a€photograph€may€be€admitted€intoÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Aucoinóó,€756€S.W.2d€705,€710€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),€òòcert.óóÏòòdeniedóó,€489€U.S.€1084€(1989);€òòState€v.€Bradenóó,€867€S.W.2d€750,€758€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).€€ÌÌà@ àÔ€&ÔA.€€IDENTIFICATION€PHOTOGRAPH€OF€VICTIMÔ€ŠÔÌÌà àDefendant€contends€that€the€photograph€of€the€victim,€used€by€the€StateÏfor€identification€purposes€and€admitted€into€evidence,€constitutes€reversible€errorÏby€the€trial€court€as€any€of€the€other€photographs€used€by€the€State€could€haveÏbeen€used€for€identification€purposes.€€Defendant€argues€that€such€a€picture€ofÏthe€young€victim€was€unduly€prejudicial€as€it€motivated€the€jury€to€seekÏvindication€for€the€victimððs€death.€€Upon€review€by€this€court,€the€final€judgment€ofÏconviction€should€not€be€set€aside€unless€the€error€more€probably€than€notÍaffected€the€judgment€or€resulted€in€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.€€œTenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.›€36(b).€€Ìœ›à àWhile€it€would€have€been€better€if€the€ð ðbeforeðð€picture€of€the€victim€hadÏbeen€excluded€from€evidence,€it€added€little€or€nothing€to€the€sum€total€ofÏknowledge€of€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Dicksóó,€615€S.W.2d€126,€128€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó,€€454€U.S.€933€(1981);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Strouthóó,€620€S.W.2d€467,€472Ï(Tenn.€1981);€òòState€v.€Richardsonóó,€697€S.W.2d€594,€597€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1985).€€The€photograph€in€question€is€nothing€more€than€a€snapshot€of€theÏvictim.€Defendant€has€failed€to€provide€a€basis€for€finding€that€this€photographÏwould€generate€sympathy€or€prejudice€him.€€After€a€review€of€the€entire€record,Ïand€in€consideration€of€the€profuse€evidence€of€the€Defendantððs€guilt,€theÏintroduction€of€this€photograph€of€the€victim€was€not€prejudicial€error.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,ÏòòState€v.€Hortonóó,€Lexis€105,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€filedÏFeb.€10,€1988)€(òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó);€òòState€v.€Beckhamóó,€C.C.A.€02C01„9406„CR„00107,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€September€27,Ïœ1995).›ÌÌà@ àÔ€&ÔB.€€AUTOPSY€PHOTOGRAPHSÌÌÔ€ŠÔà àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€threeÏdifferent€autopsy€photographs€of€the€victim€into€evidence€which€he€claims€areÍoverly€prejudicial.€€The€State€sought€to€introduce€into€evidence€four€autopsyÏphotographs.€€While€three€of€the€photographs€were€admitted€into€evidence,€oneÏphotograph€showing€an€incision€from€the€victimððs€mid„€chest€to€the€navel€and€theÏold,€brown€blood€inside€the€victimððs€body€was€ruled€inadmissible€by€the€trialÏjudge.€€This€photograph€was€determined€as€more€prejudicial€than€probative€byÏthe€trial€judge.€€Photographs€of€a€corpse€are€admissible€in€murder€prosecutions,Ïif€they€are€relevant€to€issues€on€trial,€notwithstanding€their€gruesome€andÏhorrifying€character.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947€(Tenn.€1978).€€If€they€areÏnot€relevant€to€prove€some€part€of€the€prosecutionððs€case,€they€may€not€beÏadmitted€solely€to€inflame€the€jury€and€prejudice€them€against€the€defendant.€òòIdóó.€ÏFor€the€court€to€determine€whether€the€prejudicial€effect€of€the€photographsÏoutweighs€their€probative€value,€the€matters€to€be€considered€include€the€valueÏof€the€photographs€as€evidence,€that€is,€their€accuracy€and€clarity,€whether€theyÏwere€taken€prior€to€the€corpse€being€moved€.€.€.€the€inadequacy€of€testimonialÏevidence€relating€facts€to€the€jury€and€the€need€for€evidence€to€establish€a€primaÏfacie€case€of€guilt€or€to€rebut€defendantððs€contentions.€€òòIdóó.€at€948.€€ÌÌà àThe€first€picture€is€a€photograph€of€an€incision€cut€into€a€bruise€on€theÏvictimððs€buttocks.€€While€the€photograph€is€quite€vivid€in€its€details€of€a€gruesomeÏcrime,€it€is€not€rendered€inadmissible€merely€because€the€subject€portrayed€couldÏbe€described€in€words€or€the€photograph€may€be€cumulative.€€òòCollins€v.€Stateóó,Í506€S.W.2d€179,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€The€State€used€this€particularÏphotograph€for€the€expert€witness€to€illustrate€to€the€jury€that€the€bruise€on€theÏvictimððs€buttocks€was€deep,€indicating€a€more€extensive€injury,€and€that€it€wasÏan€older€bruise€due€to€the€depth€of€the€blood€as€shown€in€the€incision.€€€ExpertÏtestimony€of€the€State€placed€the€fatal€injuries€€occurring€from€two€to€five€daysÏprior€to€the€victimððs€date€of€death,€and€the€illustration€of€the€age€and€severity€ofÏthe€bruises€is€consistent€with€the€Stateððs€theory€of€aggravated€child€abuse€byÏthe€Defendant.€€While€such€a€photograph€may€be€visually€disturbing,€theÏphotograph€was€not€so€prejudicial€as€to€outweigh€its€probative€value€inÏdetermining€the€age€and€severity€of€the€bruise.ÌÌà àThe€two€other€photographs€the€Defendant€argues€were€erroneouslyÏadmitted€into€evidence€are€pictures€of€the€victimððs€liver.€€The€trial€court€found€thatÏsuch€photos€were€not€so€disturbing€as€to€be€unduly€prejudicial,€and€the€photosÏof€the€liver€were€probative€in€the€proof€of€the€elements€of€aggravated€childÏabuse.€€The€Stateððs€expert€witness€used€these€photographs€to€demonstrateÏthe€severity€of€the€victimððs€injuries,€and€to€illustrate€that€the€tear€which€occurredÏtwo€to€five€days€prior€to€the€victimððs€death€was€consistent€with€the€DefendantððsÏstatement€about€beating€and€kicking€the€victim€on€November€3,€1993.€TheÏadmission€into€evidence€of€these€photographs€by€the€trial€court€was€not€anÏabuse€of€discretion,€and€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àV.€€€€€òòADMISSION€OF€LAY€OPINION€TESTIMONYóóÌÌà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€a€cousin€ofÏthe€victim€to€testify€as€to€her€opinion€of€the€Defendantððs€discipline€of€the€victim.ÌIf€a€witness€is€not€testifying€as€an€expert,€the€œwitnessððs›€testimony€in€the€form€ofÏopinions€or€inferences€is€limited€to€those€opinions€or€inferences€which€areÏrationally€based€on€the€perception€of€the€witness€and€helpful€to€a€clearÏunderstanding€of€the€œwitnessððs›€testimony€or€the€determination€of€a€fact€in€issue.€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€701.€€If€the€testimony€of€the€witness€describes€his€or€herÏobservations€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€because€it€is€the€only€way€in€which€theyÏcan€be€clearly€described,€then€there€is€an€exception€to€this€general€rule.€ÏòòNational€Life€&€Accident€v.€Follettóó,€168€Tenn.€647,€80€S.W.2d€271,€274€(Tenn.Ï1935)€(testimony€that€a€footprint€in€the€snow€looked€like€someone€had€slipped);ÏòòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€550€(Tenn.€1992)€(nurseððs€testimony€that€anÏinjury€on€the€victimððs€foot€looked€like€a€cigarette€burn);€òòState€v.€Mabonóó,€648ÏS.W.2d€271,€274€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982)€(testimony€that€a€substanceÏappeared€to€be€blood).ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€victimððs€cousin€testified€that€while€she€lived€with€the€victim€œshe›Ïwitnessed€several€incidents€where€the€Defendant€disciplined€the€victim.€€SheÍultimately€told€other€family€members€that€such€discipline€by€the€Defendant€wasÏtoo€strict.€€This€testimony€fits€within€the€parameters€of€the€exception€to€theÏgeneral€rule;€her€opinion€of€the€Defendantððs€discipline€of€the€victim€was€the€onlyÏway€for€her€to€clearly€describe€her€observances.€This€Court€cannot€find€this€asÏreversible€error,€particularly€in€light€of€this€cousinððs€earlier€testimony€in€which€sheÏdescribed€the€Defendantððs€repeated€discipline€of€the€victim€for€every€little€thingÏshe€did.€There€was€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€judge€in€allowing€suchÏtestimony.€€ÌÌÓÓà@ àVI.€€€€€òòADMISSION€OF€JENCKS€ACT€MATERIAL€Ìà@ àOF€DEFENSE€INVESTIGATORóóÌÌÓÓà àÌà àDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€requiring€the€Defendant€toÏprovide€a€copy€of€his€private€investigatorððs€reports€to€the€State€as€ð ðJencks€ActððÏmaterials.€€After€a€witness€has€testified,€the€party€who€offered€the€witness,€onÏmotion€of€the€other€party,€must€provide€the€moving€party€with€any€œwitnessððs›Ïstatement€the€offering€party€has€in€their€possession€that€relates€to€the€testimonyÏof€the€witness.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€26.2(a).€€A€statement€includes:ÌÓÓ€à8 à(1)€a€written€statement€made€by€the€witness€that€is€signed€orÏotherwise€adopted€or€approved€by€the€witness;€or€ÌÌà8 à(2)a€substantially€verbatim€recital€of€an€oral€statement€made€by€theÏwitness€that€is€recorded€contemporaneously€with€the€making€of€theÍoral€statement€and€that€is€contained€in€a€stenographic,€mechanical,Ïelectrical,€or€other€recording€or€a€transcription€thereof.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€26.2(g).€€ÌWhile€this€Court€concludes€that€requiring€the€Defendant€to€provide€these€reportsÏto€the€State€was€error,€such€error€was€harmless€in€that€there€was€no€prejudiceÏto€the€Defendant.ÌÌà àThe€statements€at€issue€were€notes€a€private€investigator€took€as€sheÏinterviewed€witnesses€for€the€Defendant.€€These€notes€€were€later€transcribedÏas€a€record€of€her€interviews€of€these€witnesses.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€theÏrecord€that€the€statement€was€adopted€or€approved€by€the€witness.€€Rule€26.2Ïwas€formerly€a€part€of€Rule€16.€€In€an€earlier€case€under€Rule€16,€this€Court€heldÏthat€a€summary€of€a€witnessððs€pre„trial€statement€would€only€be€subject€toÏinspection€under€the€ð ðJencks€Actðð€if€it€was€in€writing€and€was€signed,€adopted€orÏapproved€by€the€witness.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Robinsonóó,€618€S.W.2d€754,€759€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1981).€€The€notes€the€investigator€made€while€interviewing€theÏwitness€do€not€qualify€€under€the€definition€of€a€ð ðsubstantially€verbatim€recitalðð€ofÏa€witnessððs€oral€statement€under€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€ProcedureÏ26.2(g).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Paytonóó,€782€S.W.2d€490,€494„95€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1989);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Farmeróó,€No.€88„282„III,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏNashville,€filed€November€17,€1989)€(Rule€11€application€denied,€January€29,Í1990).€€While€the€private€investigatorððs€report€should€not€have€been€subject€toÏthe€ð ðJencks€Act,ðð€any€such€error€by€the€trial€court€was€harmless.€€DefendantððsÏattorney€stated€to€the€trial€court€that€the€report€was€not€detrimental€to€theÏDefendant.€€Therefore,€Defendant€did€not€suffer€any€prejudice€in€turning€over€theÏreport€to€the€State.ÌÌà@ àVII.€€€€€òòADMINISTRATION€OF€OATH€TO€GRAND€JURY€FOREPERSONóóÌÌà àThe€final€issue€Defendant€raises€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€swearing€in€Ïa€grand€jury€foreperson€in€view€of€the€jury.€€The€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure€provide€for€an€oath€to€be€administered€to€all€members€of€the€grandÏjury,€including€the€foreperson.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€6(a)(4).€€A€separate€subsectionÏof€Rule€6€provides€that€every€member€of€the€grand€jury€shall€keep€secret€theÏproceedings€of€that€body.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€6(k)(1).€€Defendant€argues€that€theÏswearing€in€of€the€foreperson€of€the€grand€jury€by€the€trial€judge€in€the€presenceÏof€the€Defendantððs€jury€was€prejudical€and€in€violation€of€the€rule€of€secrecy€inÏproceedings.ÌÌà àThe€purpose€of€secrecy€for€grand€jury€proceedings€is€to€à8 àÌÌÓÓà8 àimbue€the€grand€jurors€with€a€sense€of€confidence€and€security€soÏthat€they€may€discharge€their€duties€without€apprehension€of€anyÏhurt€from€an€accused€or€some€other€person;€to€secure€the€utmostÏfreedom€of€disclosure€of€alleged€crimes€by€prosecutors;€to€concealÏthe€fact€that€an€indictment€has€been€found€against€an€accusedÏwho€is€not€yet€in€custody;€to€prevent€perjury€and€subornation€ofÏperjury€to€the€extent€that,€if€testimony€given€before€the€grand€juryÏwere€known,€the€accused€or€a€confederate€might€attempt€toÏdisprove€it€by€procuring€false€testimony;€and€to€protect€an€accusedÏcitizen€from€public€disgrace€in€a€case€where€there€is€not€enoughÏevidence€to€support€a€criminal€charge.ÌÌòòRippy€v.€Stateóó,€550€S.W.2d€636,€642€(Tenn.€1977),€òò(quotingóó€1€Wharton,€CriminalÏProcedure€(Torcia€12th€Ed.€1974),€ðð€221€at€488,€489).ÌÓÓÌà àObviously,€the€swearing€in€of€the€grand€jury€foreperson€is€not€within€theÏpurpose€of€the€rule€for€secrecy.€€Therefore,€there€was€no€error€by€the€trial€judgeÏwhen€he€administered€the€oath€to€the€foreperson€of€the€grand€jury€in€view€of€theÏDefendantððs€jury.€€Furthermore,€we€find€that€the€administration€of€such€an€oath€inÏthe€presence€of€the€Defendantððs€jury€was€not€prejudical€to€the€trial€of€theÏDefendant€in€any€way.€€The€jury€was€instructed€that€the€indictment€against€theÏDefendant€issued€by€the€grand€jury€was€not€evidence€of€the€Defendantððs€guilt.€ÏIt€is€presumed€that€the€jury€followed€the€trial€courtððs€instructions.€€òòState€v.ÏLawsonóó,€695€S.W.2d€202,€204€(Tenn.€1985).€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÇÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________à àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€Judge