’WPC Xz‚±4D,ķҘK8±ęoŠ_O„%'uó1ŠwĻ4 2w‡˜z…Į–žåųGpźĮÖPĄbѵXųüMŲßā?;hźœHŁń±ōżLį@ć³+īˆŽļ+Ź]”łæŗµ»ćŽõO­ō# ^½MöS1š$vm.Q×)BH­Tģ²šūŸd‰ tēüR2mAģ«™ *¢øōkV“W ‹r œ¼‹*ŸüŽ‹1#²ÆOŚ#³_$ģsžuqŽV(ёήæøHžEņ*•8.Ų Ņ±Na[JĢ?ąŖĖo]Ši’Ź¢×7I,ZčŹÖ]M<ßį1ī‡ĢKK·”\ē–m½¢aʱ †*«„JTó{Ļ­E<*ģ;Žrnī$<+éĀSBźĢŽ/]漚yj]2 ¤Ļ±č¹ŗÓ« YSY‚åcŠŽ0· Ŗ•wAŗRįļrwEL; ÖįŠŒ„&čŅaā×qflģ¼OņYökšÓܹzĪŖOS=ܷŦTDx¤Ev¬]•¹ĶįlÓ>ŅĆ@˜—sŠVĶ …# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(„ U :Ķ L w@S 4“ § U.¶ ä U:ģ & KD U:U:Édg ožzU:xx"²²²²²²²²²²²²² BŌŌŌŌŌŌ D3ńńń 0D$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 0Ęh 0D.................................. AOrĘĮĮ 0D‡ D/Ė Bś˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLŠ(ČhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($””, ųš AZ"Arial RegularC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT 9/:/D;//E?/Õ`/d/e/Ӏżhµ&3|xp/%ä2¼A`ArialTT, ųš AZ‹"Arial Regular Ō€X·XXXŌŌ€īAēīXX·ŌÓ  ÓŌ Ad ŌFILEDŌ€Ļ īīAēŌŠ  ŠĢņ ņJuly€26,€1999Š ¶¶ ŠĢCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ĢŌ€ō=°ō ĻŌAppellate€CourtŠ –– ŠClerkó ó AŻ ƒ\a$ŻŅ4°ŅŅX°ŅŌ€ōĶyōXXŌŌ€ōK‡ōōōĶyŌą Œ ąņņŚ  Ś4Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻThe€record€reflects€the€trial€courtššs€compliance€with€the€procedural€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.Š `  ŠEvid.€404(b).€€ņņDuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€652., ųš AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ZŻ ƒ\a$ŻŅ4°ŅŅX°ŅŌ€ōĶyōXXŌŌ€ōK‡ōōōĶyŌą Œ ąņņŚ  Ś1Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻJudge€Kiener€testified€during€both€the€Stateššs€and€the€appellantššs€presentation€of€proof.€€OnŠ `  Šbehalf€of€the€State,€he€merely€testified€that€he€issued€an€order€of€protection€against€the€appellant.€ĻDuring€the€appellantššs€case,€defense€counsel€elicited€testimony€concerning€the€contents€of€Mrs.ĻDurhamššs€petition€for€an€order€of€protection€and€the€substance€of€testimony€adduced€at€the€order€ofĻprotection€hearing.€ žŻ ƒ\a$ŻŅ4°ŅŅX°ŅŌ€ōĶyōXXŌŌ€ōK‡ōōōĶyŌą Œ ąņņŚ  Ś3Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻWe€acknowledge€that€the€appellant€attempted€to€commit€suicide€shortly€after€murdering€hisŠ `  Šwife.€€However,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€noted€thatĢą8 Œ ąą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąššthe€empirical€relationship€between€mental€illness€and€suicidešš€orĻsuicide€attempts€is€uncertain€and€.€.€.€a€suicide€attempt€need€notĻalways€signal€ššan€inability€to€perceive€reality€accurately,€to€reasonĻlogically€and€to€make€plans€and€carry€them€out€in€an€organizedĻfashion.ššŠ ä Š ä Š  ŠņņDrope€v.€Missourióó,€420€U.S.€162,€181,€95€S.Ct.€896,€908€n.€16€(1975)(citation€omitted). Ż ƒ\a$ŻŅ4°ŅŅX°ŅŌ€ōĶyōXXŌŌ€ōK‡ōōōĶyŌą Œ ąņņŚ  Ś2Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻWe€subsequently€conclude€that€this€testimony€was€admissible€at€trial.€€ņņSee€infraóó€Part€II(b).€€ ōŻ ƒ\å$ŻŅ4°ŅŅX°ŅŌ€XҜXXXŌą Œ ąņņŚ  Ś3Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻWe€acknowledge€that€the€petitioner€attempted€to€commit€suicide€shortly€afterŠ `  Šmurdering€his€wife.€€However,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€noted€thatĢą8 Œ ąą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąššthe€empirical€relationship€between€mental€illness€andĻsuicidešš€or€suicide€attempts€is€uncertain€and€.€.€.€a€suicideĻattempt€need€not€always€signal€ššan€inability€to€perceiveĻreality€accurately,€to€reason€logically€and€to€make€plansĻand€carry€them€out€in€an€organized€fashion.ššŠ ä Š ä Š  ŠņņDrope€v.€Missourióó,€420€U.S.€162,€181,€95€S.Ct.€896,€908€n.€16€(1975)(citationŠ ŖJ Šomitted)., ųš AZ‹"Arial Regular Ń ` ŃŃ X Ń d$$$$'’’dxd(3Æ$££Ż ƒ!ŻŻ  Ż(v(2Ų$¤¤Ż ƒ!ŻŻ  ŻŅ4°ŅŅX°ŅŌ€ōĶōXXŌŌ€ō=°ōōōĶŌą Œ ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó(#Ć$ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó€-‚ƒCž’<< C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó ó„„'÷’ dxdü’P PdŻ ƒ!ŻŻ  Żńe/ń›ńe/ńŃ` °ŃŃܰŃŅ4°ŅŅX°ŅŌ€XģMXXXŌŃTR[¤ AŲ'’ Legal3Ų' AŲ'’ Legal’3Ų'TŃŌ‡ XģMXXXģMŌŃ7€¬ęXXdšXXdš7ŃŃ  Ńńe/ńßr€ *<,(j 8 `€€@Ehf  tt0" ` ØŲrߛńe/ńą@Q Q Śąņņņ ņIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆŠ `  ŠŃ€ŃĢą@üü*ŚąAT€KNOXVILLEˆĢĢą@!!&ŚąJANUARY€1999€SESSIONˆĢĢĢĢóóSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ą ” ąą ģ ąņņą D ąóó*ą œ ąó óNo.€03C01„9802„CR„00063ņ ņņņŠ ą€ ŠĢą Œ ąóóAppelleeą < ąą ” ąą ģ ąą D ą*ą œ ąó óWASHINGTON€COUNTYņ ņņņŠ Ą`  ŠĢóóV.ą Œ ąą ä ąą < ąą ” ąą ģ ąą D ą*ą œ ąó óHon.€Lynn€W.€Brown,€Judgeņ ņņņŠ  @  ŠĢņŒņóóVERLIN€RALPH€DURHAMņņą ģ ąą D ąóó*ą œ ąóŒóó ó(First€Degree€Murder)ņ ņņņŠ €  ŠĢóóą Œ ąAppellant.ą < ąą ” ąą ģ ąą D ą*Š ` ŠņņĢņŽņĢó óFor€Appellantą < ąóŽóą ” ąą ģ ąą D ąą œ ąœń>/ńą ō ąń>/ńņŽņFor›€AppelleeóŽóŠ 0Š ŠĢóóGerald€L.€Gulley,€Jr.ą ” ąą ģ ąą D ąą œ ąJohn€Knox€WalkupŠ ° ŠContract€Appellate€Defenderą ģ ąą D ąą œ ąAttorney€General€and€ReporterŠ   ŠP.O.€Box€1708ą < ąą ” ąą ģ ąą D ąą œ ą425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthŠ š ŠKnoxville,€TN€€37901„1708ą ģ ąą D ąą œ ąNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Š ą€ ŠĢDavid€Bautistaą < ąą ” ąą ģ ąą D ąą œ ąEllen€H.€PollackŠ Ą!` ŠDistrict€Public€Defenderą ” ąą ģ ąą D ąą œ ąAssistant€Attorney€General€Š °"P ŠP.O.€Box€996ą < ąą ” ąą ģ ąą D ąą œ ą425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthŠ  #@ ŠJohnson€City,€TN€€37605ą ” ąą ģ ąą D ąą œ ąNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Š $0 ŠĢJeffrey€C.€Kellyą < ąą ” ąą ģ ąą D ąą œ ąDavid€CrockettŠ p& ŠOffice€of€the€District€Public€Defenderą D ąą œ ąDistrict€Attorney€Generalą ü! ąą T$ ąŠ `'  ŠP.O.€Box€996ą < ąą ” ąą ģ ąą D ąą œ ąP.O.€Box€38Š P(š! ŠJohnson€City,€TN€€37605ą ” ąą ģ ąą D ąą œ ąJonesborough,€TN€€37659Š @)ą" ŠĢą Œ ąą ä ąą < ąą ” ąą ģ ąą D ąą œ ąLisa€Nidiffer€RiceĢą Œ ąą ä ąą < ąą ” ąą ģ ąą D ąą œ ąAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralĢą Œ ąą ä ąą < ąą ” ąą ģ ąą D ąą œ ąP.O.€Box€38Ģą Œ ąą ä ąą < ąą ” ąą ģ ąą D ąą œ ąJonesborough,€TN€€37659ĢĢĢOPINION€FILED:ĢĢĢĢAFFIRMEDĢĢĢĢNORMA€MCGEE€OGLE,€JUDGEņ ņņņŠ  @8ą.2S ŠŃŃŃ` ` ŃŃXÜŃŃ  ŃŃÜXŃÓÓÓ  ÓņŒņņŽņOPINIONóŒóóŽóŌ#†XģMXX XģMŃ#ŌŠ `  Šó óóóÓ  Óą Œ ąą ä ąThe€appellant,€Verlin€Ralph€Durham,€appeals€as€of€right€his€convictionŠ @ ą Šby€a€jury€in€the€Criminal€Court€for€Washington€County€of€premeditated€first€degreeĻmurder.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€in€the€TennesseeĻDepartment€of€Correction.€€On€appeal,€the€appellant€presents€the€following€issuesĻfor€our€review:ÓÓĢĢą Œ ą1.ą ä ąWhether€the€juryššs€verdict€is€supported€by€sufficient€evidence.Š  @  ŠĢą8 Œ ą2.ą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąWhether€the€trial€court€erroneously€admitted€testimonyŠ €  Šconcerning€a€prior€threatening€statement€made€by€theĻappellant€to€the€victim,€thereby€violating€the€TennesseeĻRules€of€Evidence€and€denying€the€appellant€dueĻprocess€of€law€under€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€theĻUnited€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€8€of€theĻTennessee€Constitution.Š ä Š ä Š  ŠĢą8 Œ ą3.ą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąWhether€the€trial€court€erroneously€prohibited€theŠ   Šappellantššs€daughter€from€testifying€concerning€theĻvictimššs€prior€statements€contrary€to€the€rules€of€evidenceĻand€principles€of€due€process.Š ä Š ä Š  ŠĢą8 Œ ą4.ą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąWhether€the€prosecutor€engaged€in€misconduct€duringŠ °"P Šclosing€argument.Š ä Š ä Š  ŠĢą8 Œ ą5.ą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąWhether€the€trial€court€impermissibly€advised€the€jury€thatŠ €%  Ša€š šgood€closing€argumentšš€should€not€exceed€twentyĻminutes.Š ä Š ä Š  ŠĢą8 Œ ą6.ą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąWhether€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€errors€denied€theŠ @)ą" Šappellant€due€process€of€law.Š ä Š ä Š  ŠĢÓÓĢą Œ ąą ä ąFollowing€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€and€the€partiesšš€briefs,€weĻaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ĢĢą@§§%Śąņ ņņņI.€€Factual€Backgroundó óóóˆŠ 30*- Šą Œ ąą ä ąThe€appellantššs€murder€conviction€arose€from€the€fatal€shooting€of€hisĻwife,€Joyce€Durham,€at€a€United€gas€station€and€convenience€store€on€West€MarketŠ P7š-1 ŠStreet€in€Johnson€City,€Tennessee.€€Testimony€at€trial€revealed€that€the€appellantĻand€Mrs.€Durham€had€separated€in€August€1996,€following€thirty„four€years€ofĻmarriage.€€Mrs.€Durham€moved€to€her€motherššs€home€following€the€separation€and,Ļin€September€1996,€petitioned€the€General€Sessions€Court€of€Washington€CountyĻfor€an€order€of€protection€against€her€husband.€€In€her€petition,€Mrs.€Durham€allegedĻthat€the€appellant€was€engaging€in€š šconstant€drinking,€cussing,€verbal€and€mentalĻabuse,€also€destruction€of€personal€property.€€And€physical€in€past€.€.€.€.€€Coming€onĻjob€drunk,€calling€work,€employees€names.šš€€Judge€John€Kiener,€the€generalĻsessions€court€judge€who€heard€Mrs.€Durhamššs€petition,€testified€that€he€issued€anĻorder€of€protection,€particularly€instructing€the€appellant€to€stay€away€from€Mrs.ĻDurhamššs€workplace.׃ׯ ƒ]#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś1Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׊  Ą ŠĢą Œ ąą ä ąMrs.€Durham€worked€at€the€United€gas€station€and€convenience€storeĻwhere€she€died€on€October€1,€1996.€€At€trial,€Lorrie€Gloria€Ann€š šTinyšš€Coffey,€a€co„¼worker€of€Mrs.€Durham,€testified€on€behalf€of€the€State,€recounting€events€leading€toĻMrs.€Durhamššs€murder.€€She€testified€that,€several€weeks€prior€to€Mrs.€DurhamššsĻdeath,€the€appellant€telephoned€his€wife€at€work.€€Ms.€Coffey€answered€theĻtelephone€in€the€rear€of€the€store.€€She€recognized€the€appellantššs€voice,€althoughĻhis€speech€was€slurred,€and€asked€Mrs.€Durham€to€pick€up€a€telephone€receiverĻwhere€she€was€working€in€the€front€of€the€store.€€When€Mrs.€Durham€picked€up€theĻreceiver,€Ms.€Coffey€continued€to€listen€to€the€conversation.€€She€testified€at€trial:ĢÓÓą8 Œ ąą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąWell,€he€was€yelling,€you€know,€screaming€and€cussing.€ĻHe€was€wanting€her€to€come€home€and€she€wouldnššt€goĻhome.€€She€told€him€no.€.€.€.Š ä Š ä Š  ŠŠ 30*- Šą8 Œ ąą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąHe€said,€š šYouššll€know€what€„„€you€know€what€will€happenĻto€you.šš€Ó*ÓŠ ä Š ä Š  ŠĢą Œ ąą ä ąOn€the€night€of€the€murder,€the€appellant€entered€the€store€a€little€afterĻ9:00€p.m.,€at€the€conclusion€of€Mrs.€Durhamššs€shift.€€Ms.€Coffey€testified€that€Mrs.ĻDurham€had€just€served€a€customer€at€the€drive„up€window,€and€Ms.€Coffey€wasĻstanding€beside€her.€€The€appellant€laid€a€rifle€on€the€cash€register€and€stated,Ļš šBitch,€this€is€what€youššve€been€waiting€on.šš€€The€appellant€shot€Mrs.€Durham€onceĻbefore€Mrs.€Durham€and€Ms.€Coffey€could€turn€and€begin€running€down€the€hallwayĻtoward€the€rear€of€the€store.€€Ms.€Coffey€testified€that€she€was€sure€that€the€first€shotĻhit€Mrs.€Durham,€because€š šher€blood€went€in€my€mouth.šš€€The€appellant€continuedĻfiring€the€rifle.€€Mrs.€Durham€was€behind€Ms.€Coffey,€š šhanging€on€the€back€of€myĻneck.šš€€Ms.€Coffey€heard€Mrs.€Durham€say,€š šOh,€God,€Tiny,€help€me.šš€€Mrs.€DurhamĻthen€fell€to€the€floor.€€As€Mrs.€Durham€fell,€Ms.€Coffey€could€feel€Mrs.€DurhamššsĻknees€hit€the€back€of€her€legs.€€Ms.€Coffey€crawled€into€the€bathroom€and€waited€forĻa€few€minutes.€€When€she€emerged,€she€was€able€to€observe€on€a€security€monitorĻthe€appellant€leaving€the€store.€€The€appellant€appeared€to€be€calm.€€Ms.€CoffeyĻthen€telephoned€the€police.€€She€stated€that,€by€that€time,€Mrs.€Durham€was€alreadyĻdead.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąJohn€Whitaker€also€testified€on€behalf€of€the€State.€€He€was€at€theĻUnited€gas€station€shortly€after€9:00€p.m.€on€October€1,€1996.€€He€was€pumping€gasĻinto€his€car€when€he€heard€š ša€bunch€of€noisešš€that€sounded€like€gunshots.€ĻImmediately€thereafter,€Mr.€Whitaker€observed€the€appellant€emerge€from€theĻconvenience€store.€€The€appellant€was€carrying€a€long€weapon€and€was€walkingĻš šslow€and€casual.šš€€He€proceeded€to€his€car€and€placed€the€rifle€in€the€back€seat.€Š P7š-1 ŠBefore€entering€the€vehicle,€the€appellant€turned€and€looked€at€Mr.€Whitaker€š šlike€heĻwas€calm€as€can€be.šš€€Another€vehicle€passed€in€front€of€the€appellantššs€car€from€theĻdirection€of€the€drive„up€window.€€The€appellant€waited€for€the€car€to€pass€and€thenĻdrove€away.€ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąAngela€Lynette€Coppage€testified€that€she€was€with€her€ex„husbandĻand€her€six€year€old€daughter€at€the€United€gas€station€on€the€night€of€the€murder.€ĻShe€and€her€husband€were€purchasing€beer€at€the€drive„up€window,€and€Mrs.ĻDurham€was€serving€them.€€After€concluding€the€transaction,€her€husband€began€toĻdrive€the€car€away€from€the€window.€€At€that€time,€they€heard€gunshots€inside€theĻstore.€€Her€husband€drove€to€the€front€of€the€store€and€paused€in€front€of€a€parkedĻcar.€€Mrs.€Coppage€observed€the€appellant€emerge€from€the€store€carrying€a€gun.€ĻHe€was€walking€at€a€normal€pace€and€appeared€to€be€calm.€€He€placed€the€gun€inĻthe€parked€car,€entered€the€car,€and€drove€away.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąThe€State€additionally€introduced€the€testimony€of€James€Brown,€anĻinvestigator€with€the€Johnson€City€Police€Department.€€Investigator€Brown€testifiedĻthat€he€was€on€duty€on€the€evening€of€October€1,€1996.€€He€was€dispatched€atĻapproximately€9:11€p.m.€to€the€United€gas€station€and€convenience€store.€€When€heĻarrived€at€the€gas€station,€another€patrol€unit€and€an€ambulance€were€alreadyĻpresent,€and€paramedics€were€attempting€to€revive€Mrs.€Durham€inside€the€store.€ĻInvestigator€Brown€began€securing€the€crime€scene.€€He€spoke€with€severalĻwitnesses,€including€Ms.€Coffee,€Mr.€Whitaker,€and€the€Coppages.€€Additionally,€aĻsearch€of€the€crime€scene€yielded€seven€spent€.22€caliber€long€rifle€casings€from€theĻcounter€area€of€the€convenience€store€and€one€long€rifle€casing€from€outside€theĻdrive„up€window€of€the€store.€€Investigator€Brown€also€obtained€a€video€tape€fromŠ @8ą.2 Šthe€storeššs€automated€surveillance€system.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąThe€video€tape,€and€still€photographs€developed€from€the€video€tapeĻby€the€Federal€Bureau€of€Investigation,€show€the€appellant€entering€the€convenienceĻstore€at€approximately€9:11€p.m.€€Mrs.€Durham€was€working€at€the€drive„up€window,Ļand€Ms.€Coffey€was€in€the€back€of€the€store.€€According€to€the€video€tape€and€theĻphotographs,€the€appellant€stood€and€looked€in€the€direction€of€the€drive„up€windowĻfor€approximately€fourteen€(14)€seconds.€€At€that€time,€the€appellant€was€carryingĻnothing€in€his€hands€other€than,€perhaps,€money€or€cigarettes.€€The€appellant€thenĻleft€the€store€and€reentered€moments€later€carrying€a€long€object,€later€identified€asĻa€rifle.€€By€this€time,€Mrs.€Durham€and€Ms.€Coffey€had€returned€to€the€front€counter.€ĻThe€appellant€pointed€the€rifle€toward€the€two€women.€€Mrs.€Durham€and€Ms.€CoffeyĻthen€fled€toward€the€back€of€the€store.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąInvestigator€Brown€testified€that€the€police€quickly€determined€that€theĻappellant€was€a€suspect€and€issued€a€š šBOLOšš€or€š šbe€on€the€lookoutšš€for€theĻappellant.€€When€the€police€apprehended€the€appellant,€the€officers€recovered€theĻfollowing€items:€a€Marlin€.22€caliber€semi„automatic€rifle€with€eight€live€rounds€in€theĻmagazine€and€a€single€shot€twelve€gauge€shotgun€with€a€spent€shell€casing€in€theĻchamber.€€Investigator€Brown€testified€that€the€Marlin€rifle€has€a€tube€magazine€thatĻruns€along€the€base€of€the€barrel.€€The€gun€is€š šspring€loaded,šš€i.e.,€once€a€bullet€isĻfired€from€the€gun,€a€mechanism€forces€another€bullet€from€the€magazine€into€theĻchamber€of€the€rifle.€€Investigator€Brown€observed€that,€in€order€to€fire€eight€roundsĻfrom€the€rifle,€a€person€would€need€to€pull€the€trigger€eight€times.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąBob€Odom,€an€officer€with€the€Johnson€City€Police€Department,€alsoŠ @8ą.2 Štestified€that,€on€October€1,€1996,€a€little€after€9:00€p.m.,€he€was€dispatched€to€theĻUnited€gas€station€and€convenience€store.€€Soon€thereafter,€he€began€to€search€theĻsurrounding€area€for€the€appellant,€who€had€been€identified€as€a€suspect.€€As€heĻwas€driving€past€the€tobacco€warehouses€lining€Main€Street€in€Johnson€City,€heĻobserved€a€parked€car€matching€the€description€of€the€appellantššs€blue€FordĻMustang.€€A€man€was€sitting€inside€the€vehicle.€€After€communicating€with€theĻdispatcher,€Officer€Odom€activated€a€spot€light€and€directed€it€toward€the€appellantššsĻcar.€€By€this€time,€the€appellant€was€standing€outside€his€car,€with€his€back€to€theĻofficer.€€The€officer€got€out€of€his€vehicle€and€drew€his€weapon.€€However,€when€heĻasked€the€appellant€to€raise€his€hands€and€turn€around,€the€appellant€fell€to€theĻground,€landing€on€his€stomach.€€Upon€the€arrival€of€additional€officers,€theyĻattempted€to€handcuff€the€appellant.€€They€then€discovered€a€bullet€wound€in€theĻappellantššs€chest€and€called€for€medical€assistance.€€An€ambulance€transported€theĻappellant€to€Johnson€City€Medical€Center.€€Meanwhile,€the€officers€located€the€.22Ļcaliber€Marlin€rifle€in€the€back€seat€of€the€appellantššs€car.€€The€shotgun€was€lying€onĻthe€ground€in€front€of€the€appellantššs€car.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąRobert€Royce,€a€forensic€scientist€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofĻInvestigation€specializing€in€firearms€identification,€testified€that€the€.22€caliber€longĻrifle€casings€recovered€from€the€scene€of€the€murder€had€been€fired€from€the€MarlinĻrifle€recovered€from€the€appellantššs€blue€Ford€Mustang.€€Additionally,€eight€bulletsĻrecovered€from€Mrs.€Durhamššs€body€possessed€the€same€class€characteristics€andĻsimilar€individual€characteristics€as€test€bullets€fired€from€the€rifle.€€Finally,€AgentĻRoyce€demonstrated€to€the€jury€the€steps€required€in€loading€the€Marlin€rifle:ĢÓÓą8 Œ ąą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąStarting€with€it€empty,€you€pull€up€the€magazine€tube€andĻexpose€the€loading€port€right€here.€€You€then€drop€theĻlive€cartridges€in€one€at€a€time,€[and]€replace€theŠ @8ą.2 Š[magazine€tube].€At€that€point,€youššd€have€to€.€.€.€justĻcycle€[the€slide]€one€time€in€order€to€chamber€the€first€liveĻcartridge.Š ä Š ä Š  ŠÓ<ÓĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąMona€Gretel€Harlan,€a€forensic€pathologist,€performed€an€autopsy€onĻthe€victim,€Joyce€Durham.€€She€determined€that€the€victim€died€as€a€result€ofĻmultiple€gunshot€wounds.€€Mrs.€Durham€suffered€eight€gunshot€wounds.€€Six€of€theĻeight€bullets€damaged€major€organs,€including€Mrs.€Durhamššs€heart,€lungs,€kidneys,Ļliver,€stomach,€spleen,€and€large€intestine.€€Each€of€these€six€gunshot€wounds€wasĻpotentially€fatal.€€Dr.€Harlan€testified€that€an€unusually€high€percentage€of€theĻgunshot€wounds€were€potentially€fatal€wounds.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąThe€appellant€also€presented€proof€at€trial,€including€the€testimony€ofĻseveral€family€members.€€Kara€Higgins,€the€appellantššs€and€the€victimššs€daughter,Ļtestified€that,€on€September€30,€1996,€the€day€before€the€murder,€the€appellantĻtelephoned€her€home.€€Mrs.€Higgins€testified€that€the€appellant€sounded€intoxicated.€ĻShe€further€testified€that,€although€her€father€drank€regularly,€he€usually€did€notĻbecome€intoxicated.€€However,€she€conceded€that,€at€the€time€of€the€murder,€herĻfather€was€receiving€œSocial›€œSecurity›€disability€benefits€due€to€his€alcoholism.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąDallas€Higgins,€the€appellantššs€son„in„law,€also€testified€on€behalf€ofĻthe€appellant.€€He€testified€that,€on€the€day€prior€to€the€shooting,€he€visited€theĻappellantššs€residence€at€his€wifeššs€request.€€When€Mr.€Higgins€arrived,€the€appellantĻappeared€intoxicated.€€Mr.€Higgins€testified:€€ĢÓÓą8 Œ ąą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąHe€was€sitting€there€drinking€beer€and€he€told€me€that€heĻhad€eat€valiums€and€he€said€he€had€plenty€of€beer,€thatĻhis€wife€had€brought€him€beer,€that€the€refrigerator€wasĻfull€of€beer,€and€Mr.€Durham€opened€the€refrigerator€doorŠ @8ą.2 Šand€showed€me€the€beer.€.€.€.€€He€seemed€sad.€€HeĻseemed€depressed.€.€.€.Š ä Š ä Š  ŠĢą8 Œ ąą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąHe€never€„„€to€me€never€mentioned€his€wife€or€nothingĻlike€that.€.€.€.€€He€really€wasnššt€upset.€He€was€just€lonely,Ļwanting€somebody€to€talk€to€.€.€.€.ņņņ ņŠ°ä Š ä Š  ŠĢÓÓó óóóĢą Œ ąą ä ąMr.€Higgins€identified€the€rifle€and€the€shotgun€recovered€by€the€policeĻfrom€the€appellantššs€blue€Ford€Mustang.€€Mr.€Higgins€stated€that€the€guns€had€hungĻon€the€wall€in€the€appellantššs€house€for€many€years€and€had€been€covered€with€dust.€ĻHe€believed€that€the€guns€belonged€to€the€appellantššs€son,€Kevin.€€He€had€neverĻseen€the€appellant€with€any€guns€and,€to€his€knowledge,€the€appellant€did€not€hunt.€€ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąThe€appellant€next€called€his€sister,€Kathy€Gail€Bouton,€to€testify€on€hisĻbehalf.€€She€testified€that€she€visited€her€brother€in€the€early€evening€on€the€day€ofĻthe€murder.€€When€she€arrived€at€the€appellantššs€home,€the€appellant€was€seated€atĻthe€kitchen€table,€and€a€bottle€of€pills€was€on€the€table€beside€him.€€The€label€on€theĻbottle€indicated€that€it€contained€š šDiazepamšš€and€that€a€prescription€for€ninety€pillsĻhad€been€filled€the€previous€day.€€Ms.€Bouton€testified€that€there€were€twenty„threeĻpills€remaining€in€the€bottle.€€She€stated€that€the€appellant€denied€ingesting€theĻmissing€sixty„seven€pills€but€admitted€that€he€had€been€drinking€beer€and€whiskey.€ĻMs.€Bouton€testified€that€the€appellant€appeared€intoxicated€to€her,€because€sheĻknows€him.€€She€admitted€that€the€appellant€might€have€appeared€sober€to€aĻstranger.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąThe€appellant€conversed€with€his€sister,€confiding€that€he€missed€hisĻwife€and€wanted€her€to€return€home.€€Ms.€Bouton€and€another€sister,€Norma€JeanĻFreeman,€testified€that€the€appellant€believed€his€wife€was€having€an€affair.€Š P7š-1 ŠHowever,€Ms.€Bouton€conceded€that,€although€the€appellant€was€depressed,€he€wasĻcalm€and€did€not€appear€angry€on€the€night€of€the€murder.€€Ms.€Bouton€left€herĻbrotherššs€home€at€approximately€8:15€p.m.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąJim€Hamilton,€a€pharmacist,€testified€that€his€pharmacy€dispensedĻmedications€to€the€appellant€on€September€30,€1996,€including€Indomethacin,€anĻanti„inflammatory€drug,€Metoprolol,€an€anti„hypertensive€drug,€and€Diazepam,€anĻanti„anxiety€drug.€€Mr.€Hamilton€stated€that€Diazepam€is€commonly€referred€to€asĻValium.€€He€confirmed€that€his€pharmacy€dispensed€ninety€5€milligram€tablets€ofĻValium€to€the€appellant€on€the€day€prior€to€the€murder.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąAdditionally,€Mr.€Hamilton€testified€that€Valium€can€cause€mentalĻconfusion,€and€ingesting€Valium€together€with€alcohol€will€increase€the€effects€ofĻboth€the€Valium€and€the€alcohol.€€However,€the€pharmacist€further€testified€that€theĻappellant€had€been€regularly€taking€Valium€and€also€opined€that€a€person€whoĻregularly€ingests€Valium€and€alcohol€can€develop€a€tolerance€for€both€substancesĻand€be€able€to€function€fairly€well,€including€operating€an€automobile,€exercisingĻjudgment,€and€making€decisions.€€In€other€words,€he€confirmed€that,€if€the€proofĻshowed€that€the€appellant€š šdrank€on€a€regular€basis€or€drank€from€time€to€time€on€aĻweekly€basis€or€„„€or€drank€beer€or€whiskey€occasionally€and€took€some€Valium€pills,Ļit€is€.€.€.€entirely€possible€that€[the€appellant]€could€function€and€make€consciousĻdeliberate€decisions.šš€€The€pharmacist€also€stated€that€one€could€measure€the€effectĻof€alcohol€and€Valium€upon€an€individual€by€considering€the€following€factors:€theĻpersonššs€ability€to€operate€an€automobile;€the€personššs€ability€to€walk€or€physicallyĻmove€about;€a€personššs€ability€to€speak;€and€a€personššs€ability€to€performĻmechanical€tasks€that€require€physical€dexterity.Š @8ą.2 Š€€Ģą Œ ąą ä ąFinally,€Mr.€Hamilton€testified€that€a€normal€person€would€be€comatoseĻif€he€took€sixty„seven€five€milligram€Valium€tablets€within€a€twenty„four€hour€period.€ĻHe€again€noted€that€an€individualššs€tolerance€will€vary€depending€upon€the€personššsĻhistory€of€taking€the€drug.€€However,€the€pharmacist€testified€that€sixty„seven€fiveĻmilligram€tablets€would€exceed€a€lethal€dose€of€Valium.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąDr.€Mark€Harrell€also€testified€on€behalf€of€the€appellant.€€He€testifiedĻthat€he€is€a€physician€with€the€Emergency€Department€at€Johnson€City€MedicalĻCenter.€€He€testified€that€he€treated€the€appellant€on€October€1,€1996,€for€a€self„¼inflicted€gunshot€wound€in€his€left€lower€chest€and€upper€abdominal€area.€€Dr.€HarrellĻtestified€that,€when€the€appellant€was€admitted€to€the€hospital,€he€was€intoxicated,Ļregistering€a€blood€alcohol€level€of€.131.€€Additionally,€the€appellantššs€urine€testedĻpositive€for€Benzodiazepine,€a€derivative€of€Valium.€€However,€Dr.€Harrell€testifiedĻthat€he€could€not€determine€the€quantity€of€Valium€that€the€appellant€had€ingested€orĻwhether€the€appellant€had€ingested€Valium€on€that€day€or€five€days€ago.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąDr.€Harrell€also€opined€that€a€combination€of€alcohol€and€Valium€wouldĻincrease€the€intoxicating€effects€of€both€drugs€and€would€make€š šit€easier€for€you€toĻdo€things€you€normally€wouldnššt€do.šš€€He€noted€that,€obviously,€a€higher€dosage€ofĻValium€would€more€significantly€decrease€an€individualššs€inhibitions.€€However,€heĻalso€testified€that€a€person€under€the€influence€of€alcohol€and€Valium€could€makeĻconscious€deliberate€decisions,€plan,€and€carry€out€a€plan.€€With€respect€to€alcohol,Ļthe€doctor€testified€that€many€people€who€regularly€drink€alcohol€over€a€long€periodĻof€time€can€function€fairly€well€at€.131€blood€alcohol€level.€€Moreover,€Dr.€HarrellĻstated€that€the€mere€presence€of€Valium€in€a€personššs€urine€does€not€necessarilyŠ @8ą.2 Šindicate€any€impairment€of€the€personššs€ability€to€function.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąThe€appellant€called€Dr.€Gary€Wishart,€a€licensed€clinical€psychologist,Ļto€testify€on€his€behalf.€€Dr.€Wishart€testified€that€he€had€been€hired€by€theĻappellantššs€family€following€the€murder€to€evaluate€the€appellant.€€He€had€met€withĻthe€appellant€on€two€occasions€and€had€interviewed€the€appellant€a€total€amount€ofĻnine€hours.€€On€the€basis€of€these€interviews,€Dr.€Wishart€concluded€that€theĻappellant€was€suffering€from€a€mental€defect€at€the€time€of€the€murder.€€Dr.€WishartĻtestified€that€the€appellant€had€suffered€from€a€severe€anxiety€disorder€sinceĻchildhood.€€The€anxiety€disorder€had€resulted€in€a€dependent€personality€disorderĻand€severe€alcoholism.€€The€psychologist€particularly€noted€the€appellantššs€completeĻdependence€upon€his€wife.€€Dr.€Wishart€stated,€š š[He]€was€utterly€and€totallyĻdependent€on€his€wife€for€his€psychological€well„being.€€She€was€more€important€forĻhis€psychological€survival€than€his€own€self€was€really.ššĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąIn€light€of€the€appellantššs€complete€dependence€upon€his€œwife€and€hisĻrealization€of€his€permanent€separation€from€his€wife,›€Dr.€Wishart€opined€œthat›€theĻappellant€would€not€have€been€sufficiently€rational€to€coolly€and€calmly€premeditateĻand€deliberate€the€killing€of€his€wife.€€He€explained:ĢÓÓą8 Œ ąą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ą[T]his€is€an€extremely€insecure€anxious€man€who€cannotĻthink€clearly€and€cannot€do€things€on€his€own,€and€heĻdeveloped€an€extreme€anxiety€and€dependency€disorderĻover€time€to€the€point€that€he€was€excessively€reliant€onĻhis€wife€for€his€psychological€welfare,€and€given€howĻmuch€that€he€depended€on€her€to€get€by€on€a€daily€basis,Ļmy€„„€my€opinion€is€that€he€would€not€be€able€to€fathomĻher€not€being€on€this€earth,€say€nothing€about€taking€herĻlife€himself,€in€any€kind€of€rational€state.ņ ņņņŠ€4 +.ä Š ä Š  ŠÓ²`ÓĢóóó óDr.€Wishart€additionally€concluded€that€the€appellantššs€ingestion€of€alcohol€andŠ P7š-1 ŠValium€would€have€impaired€his€ability€to€control€his€emotions€on€the€night€of€theĻmurder.€€He€asserted€that,€at€the€time€of€the€murder,€the€appellant€was€overwhelmedĻwith€emotions€and€š šout€of€control€of€his€thinking.ššĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąThe€appellant€testified€on€his€own€behalf.€€He€recounted€that€he€andĻhis€wife€separated€in€August€1996€after€he€began€accusing€his€wife€of€having€anĻaffair.€€The€appellant€stated€that€he€began€to€suspect€his€wifeššs€infidelity€following€aĻtelephone€conversation€with€his€daughter,€œSherry€Whaley.›€€œMs.€Whaley›€was€angryĻwith€her€mother,€because€Mrs.€Durham€had€struck€her€during€an€argument€aboutϜMs.€Whaleyššs›€current€boyfriend.€€œMs.€Whaley›€suggested€to€her€father€that€herĻmother€was€š šno€angel€herselfšš€and€further€suggested€that€he€should€follow€Mrs.ĻDurham€and€observe€her€activities.€€The€appellant€testified€that€he€later€spied€uponĻhis€wife€at€her€workplace€and€observed€her€talking€with€a€man€through€the€windowĻwhere€customers€pay€for€gas.€€His€wifeššs€subsequent€departure€and€petition€for€anĻorder€of€protection€further€strengthened€the€appellantššs€suspicions.€€He€also€statedĻthat,€after€the€separation,€an€acquaintance€told€him€that€his€wife€was€š špartyingšš€withĻco„workers.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąThe€appellant€testified€that€he€ultimately€became€convinced€that€hisĻwife€was€in€fact€having€an€affair€with€a€man€she€had€dated€in€œhigh€school.›€€HeĻasserted€that€his€wife€had€been€promiscuous€prior€to€their€marriage€and€that,€at€theĻtime€of€the€murder,€he€believed€that€she€was€again€engaging€in€promiscuousĻbehavior.€€Following€the€separation,€he€attempted€to€discuss€his€wifeššs€allegedĻinfidelity€with€his€daughter,€œMs.€Whaley,›€but€she€refused€to€talk€about€her€priorĻaccusation.€€On€the€morning€of€the€murder,€œMs.€Whaley›€told€her€father,€š šDaddy,€justĻforget€about€that.€€I€didnššt€mean€nothing€by€it.ššŠ @8ą.2 Їą Œ ąą ä ąThe€appellant€conceded€that,€on€the€basis€of€these€facts,€a€reasonableĻperson€would€not€have€believed€that€his€wife€was€having€an€affair.€€Nevertheless,Ļthe€night€before€the€shooting,€the€appellant€called€his€wife€and€again€inquired€if€sheĻwas€having€an€affair.€€Mrs.€Durham€hung€up€the€telephone.€€The€appellant€testifiedĻthat€his€wifeššs€reaction€confirmed€his€suspicions.€€He€also€stated€that€he€realized€atĻthat€time€that€Mrs.€Durham€was€not€returning€home.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąThe€appellant€admitted€at€trial€that€he€drank€š ša€lot€and€prettyĻperiodically,šš€and€that,€following€his€separation€from€his€wife,€he€began€drinkingĻmore.€€However,€he€denied€Mrs.€Durhamššs€other€allegations€in€the€petition€for€anĻorder€of€protection.€€The€appellant€stated€that€he€could€not€understand€why€his€wifeĻhad€left€and€admitted€that,€after€the€issuance€of€the€order€of€protection,€he€called€hisĻwife€several€times€and€asked€her€to€return€home.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąThe€appellant€began€the€day€of€the€murder€at€home,€listening€to€theĻradio€in€the€kitchen€and€drinking€beer.€€He€then€called€his€brother,€who€agreed€toĻchange€the€oil€in€the€appellantššs€car€and€perform€some€additional€repairs€on€the€car.€ĻAt€his€brotherššs€home,€the€appellant€drank€a€few€beers€and€talked€while€his€brotherĻworked€on€the€car.€€Afterwards,€the€appellant€and€his€brother€adjourned€to€a€picnicĻtable€behind€his€brotherššs€home,€drank€more€beer,€and€talked.€€Finally,€the€appellantĻthanked€his€brother€for€fixing€his€car€and€returned€home,€purchasing€a€pint€ofĻbourbon€along€the€way.Ģ€Ģą Œ ąą ä ąThe€appellant€returned€home€at€approximately€5:30€p.m.€or€6:00€p.m.€ĻHe€stayed€in€the€house€and€drank€some€more,€including€the€entire€pint€of€bourbon.€ĻThe€appellant€noted€that€he€had€a€considerable€tolerance€for€alcohol.€€The€appellantŠ @8ą.2 Šalso€testified€that€he€probably€took€some€Valium€on€the€day€of€the€murder€but€couldĻnot€recall€how€much€Valium€he€ingested.€€He€denied€taking€sixty„seven€ValiumĻtablets.€€He€suggested€that€some€tablets€may€have€been€missing€from€the€bottleĻbecause€he€had€dropped€some.€€According€to€the€appellant,€he€had€been€takingĻValium€for€six€months€prior€to€the€shooting.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąSometime€after€the€appellantššs€return€from€his€brotherššs€home,€hisĻsister€visited€him.€€When€she€departed,€he€went€to€his€bedroom€to€retire€for€theĻnight.€€The€appellant€explained€that,€at€that€time,€he€was€angry€because€he€believedĻhis€wife€was€having€an€affair€and€he€thought€about€killing€his€wife€and€himself.€€HeĻstated,€š šMy€passion€was€high.€I€had€a€lot€of€grief€and€anger€and€hurt.šš€€He€furtherĻrecounted:ĢÓÓą8 Œ ąą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąI€was€there€and€the€guns€was€right€there€on€the€wall.€.€.€.€ĻBut€I€retch€up€and€got€the€guns€there€when€all€thatĻentered€my€mind€in€a€just€instant€it€seemed€like€to€me.ĻAnd€thatššs€when€it€happened€there.€€I€took€and€theĻservice€station€that€my€wife€was€working€at,€I€could€see€itĻfrom€my€bedroom€window€.€.€.€.Š ä Š ä Š  ŠĢą Œ ąą ä ą.€.€.ĢĢą8 Œ ąą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąJust€there€when€I€started€to€go€to€bed,€I€felt€like€I€wasĻalone€and€I€thought,€you€know,€well,€my€wifeššs€gone€and€„¼„€and€Iššm€tired€of€this€being€by€myself€so€there€all€I€had€„„Ļall€them€thoughts€entered€my€mind,€you€know,€and€IĻremember€having€those€thoughts€to€run€through€my€mindĻreal€fast.€.€.€.€€Thatššs€the€choice€I€took.€€I€donššt€know€why.Š ä Š ä Š  ŠĢą Œ ąą ä ą.€.€.ĢĢą8 Œ ąą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąI€thought€about€it€and€when€I€was€thinking€about€it,€I€wasĻreaching€for€the€guns€and€it€was€all€spontaneous.Š ä Š ä Š  ŠĢÓÓThe€appellant€asserted€that€he€could€not€remember€anything€after€thinking€aboutĻkilling€his€wife€and€himself€and€after€reaching€for€the€guns€until€he€awakened€in€theĻJohnson€City€Medical€Center.Š P7š-1 Їą Œ ąą ä ąThe€appellant€confirmed€that€both€the€rifle€and€the€shotgun€wereĻunloaded€and€the€safety€device€on€the€rifle€was€probably€in€place.€€The€appellantĻstated€that€he€kept€the€ammunition€for€the€guns€in€his€top€dresser€drawer.€€HeĻrecalled€that€his€son€had€previously€told€him€that€the€ammunition€for€the€rifle€wasĻš šlong€rifle€hollow€pointsšš€and€š šhow€deadly€those€things€were.ššĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąAt€the€conclusion€of€the€evidence,€the€trial€court€charged€the€jury€withĻfirst€degree€murder,€second€degree€murder,€and€voluntary€manslaughter.€ĻAdditionally,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€concerning€the€appellantššs€claim€ofĻintoxication.€€As€previously€noted,€the€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€first€degreeĻmurder.ĢĢą@±±*Śąņ ņņņII.€€Analysisó óóóˆŠ ą€ Šņ ņa.ą Œ ąSufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óŠ Ą!` Šą Œ ąą ä ąŌ‡ X\'XXX\'ŌThe€appellant€first€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€toŠ  #@ Šsupport€his€conviction€of€the€intentional,€premeditated,€and€deliberate€murder€ofĻJoyce€Durham.€€In€Tennessee,€appellate€courts€accord€considerable€weight€to€theĻverdict€of€a€jury€in€a€criminal€trial.€€In€essence,€a€jury€conviction€removes€theĻpresumption€of€the€defendantššs€innocence€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€thatĻthe€appellant€carries€the€burden€of€demonstrating€to€this€court€why€the€evidence€willĻnot€support€the€juryššs€findings.€€ņņState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€Š ą.€%( ŠThe€appellant€must€establish€that€no€š šreasonable€trier€of€factšš€could€have€found€theĻessential€elements€of€first€degree€murder€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ņņJackson€v.Š  2@), ŠVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).Š €4 +. ŠĢą Œ ąą ä ąAccordingly,€on€appeal,€€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateŠ @8ą.2 Šview€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€ĻņņState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€€In€other€words,€questionsŠ @ ą Šconcerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€theĻevidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€are€resolved€by€theĻtrier€of€fact,€and€not€the€appellate€courts.€€ņņState€v.€Pruettóó,€788€S.W.2d€559,€561Š ą€ Š(Tenn.€1990).ĢĢŌ#†X\'XX X\'~#Ōą Œ ąą ä ąAt€the€time€of€the€offense€in€this€case,€the€relevant€statute€defined€firstŠ €  Šdegree€murder€as€š š[a]€premeditated€and€intentional€killing€of€another.šš€€Tenn.€Code.ĻAnn.€šš€39„13„202(a)(1)€(1996).€€However,€in€the€indictment,€the€State€charged€theĻappellant€with€first€degree€murder€as€defined€prior€to€July€1,€1995.€€Prior€to€that€date,Ļfirst€degree€murder€required€deliberation€in€addition€to€intent€and€premeditation.€ĻTenn.€Code.€Ann.€šš€39„13„202(a)(1)€(1994).€€Before€trial,€the€trial€court€noted€theĻStateššs€error€and€also€noted€that€the€error€benefitted€the€appellant€by€placing€aĻgreater€burden€of€proof€upon€the€State.€€œBecause€the€State€had€failed€to€submit€aĻmotion€to€amend€the€indictment,€the›€court€concluded€œthat€it€would€instruct€the€juryĻaccording€to€the€old€statute.€€Defense€counsel€proffered€no€objection€and€does€notĻchallenge€the€indictment€on€appeal.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąThus,€at€trial,€the€State€was€required€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonableĻdoubt€that€the€appellant€killed€Joyce€Durham€with€intent,€premeditation,€ņņandŠ ą.€%( Šdeliberation.óó€€A€person€acts€intentionally€š šwith€respect€to€the€nature€of€the€conduct€orŠ Ą0`'* Što€a€result€of€the€conduct€when€it€is€the€personššs€conscious€objective€or€desire€toĻengage€in€the€conduct€or€cause€the€result.šš€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€šš€39„11„106(a)(18)Ļ(1994).€€Additionally,€premeditation€necessitates€š ša€previously€formed€design€orĻintent€to€kill,šš€ņņState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992),€and€š šthe€exercise€ofŠ @8ą.2 Šreflection€and€judgment,šš€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€šš€39„13„201(b)(2)€(1994).€€DeliberationĻrequires€a€š šcool€purposešš€and€the€absence€of€š špassion€or€provocation.šš€€Tenn.€Code.ĻAnn.€šš€39„13„201(b)(1);€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€šš€39„13„201,€Sentencing€CommissionĻComments.€€However,€š šthe€[mere]€presence€of€agitation€or€even€anger€.€.€.€does€notĻnecessarily€mean€that€the€murder€could€not€have€occurred€with€the€requisite€degreeĻof€deliberation.šš€€ņņState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Š Ą`  ŠĢą Œ ąą ä ąIn€Ō‡ X\'XXX\'ŌņņState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€540„541€(Tenn.€1992)Ō#†X\'XX X\'Ō#Ō€(citationŠ €  Šomitted)(emphasis€in€original),€our€supreme€court€further€defined€premeditation€andĻdeliberation€and€explained€the€distinction€between€the€two€terms:ĢÓÓą8 Œ ąą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąš šššPremeditationšš€is€the€process€of€simply€thinking€about€aĻproposed€killing€before€engaging€in€the€homicidalĻconduct;€and€ņņššdeliberationšš€is€the€process€of€carefullyŠ   Šweighing€such€matters€as€the€wisdom€of€going€aheadĻwith€the€proposed€killing,€the€manner€in€which€the€killingĻwill€be€accomplished,€and€the€consequences€which€mayĻbe€visited€upon€the€killer€if€and€when€apprehendedóó.ņņ€Š Ą!` ŠššDeliberationšš€is€present€if€the€thinking,€i.e.,€theĻššpremeditation,šš€is€being€done€in€such€a€cool€mentalĻstate,€under€such€circumstances,€and€for€such€a€periodĻof€time€as€to€permit€a€ššcareful€weighingšš€of€the€proposedĻdecisionóó.ššņņŠp&ä Š ä Š  Š€óóŠ `'  ŠÓöÓĢŌ‡ X\'XXX\'Ōą Œ ąą ä ąIn€this€case,€the€jury€considered€both€direct€and€circumstantialŠ 0*Š # Ševidence€in€reaching€a€verdict.€€The€State€may€prove€the€necessary€elements€of€firstĻdegree€murder€with€either€or€both€categories€of€evidence,€ņņBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€atŠ š-$' Š541Ō#†X\'XX X\'4‘#ŌŌ‡ X\'XXX\'Ō,€and€the€Ō#†X\'XX X\'¤’#ŌŌ‡ X\'XXX\'Ōstandard€of€appellate€review€is€the€same.€€ņņState€v.€Nesbitóó,€978€S.W.2dŠ Š/p&) Š872,€898€(Tenn.€1998),€ņņcert.€deniedóó,€ņņ€€€€óó€U.S.€ņņ€€€€óó,€119€S.Ct.€1359€(1999);€ņņState€v.Š °1P(+ ŠVannóó,€976€S.W.2d€93,€111„112€(Tenn.€1998),€ņņcert.€deniedóó,€ņņ€€€€óó€U.S.€ņņ€€€€óó,€119€S.Ct.Š 30*- Š1467€(1999).€€As€in€the€case€of€direct€evidence,€the€weight€to€be€given€circumstantialĻevidence€and€š ššš[t]he›€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€such€evidence,€and€the€extent€toŠ P7š-1 Šwhich€the€circumstances€are€consistent€with€guilt€and€inconsistent€with€innocence,Ļare€questions€primarily€for€the€jury.ššššŌ#†X\'XX X\'š’#ŌŌ‡ X\'XXX\'Ō€ņņMarable€v.€Stateóó,€313€S.W.2d€451,€457€(Tenn.Š @ ą Š1958)(citation€omitted).€€However,€Ō#†X\'XX X\'ѕ#Ōthis€court€has€also€observed€that€circumstantialŠ  Ą Ševidence€of€a€defendantššs€state€of€mind€will€not€support€a€jury€verdict€ofĻpremeditated€and€deliberate€murder€unless€the€proof€of€premeditation€andĻdeliberation€is€so€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€everyĻother€reasonable€hypothesis.€€ņņState€v.€Schaferóó,€973€S.W.2d€269,€273€(Tenn.€Crim.Š  @  ŠApp.€1997).ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąAccordingly,€while€the€jury€may€not€engage€in€speculation,€ņņState€v.Š @ą ŠBordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€the€jury€may€inferŠ  Ą Špremeditation€and€deliberation€from€circumstances€surrounding€the€killing.€€ņņGentryóó,Š   Š881€S.W.2d€at€3.€€These€circumstances€include€planning€activity€by€a€defendantĻprior€to€the€killing;€the€defendantššs€prior€relationship€with€the€victim;€and€the€mannerĻof€the€killing.€€ņņBordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€222.€€ņņSee€alsoóó€ņņSchaferóó,€973€S.W.2d€at€273.€Š  #@ ŠMore€specifically,€our€supreme€court€has€observed€that€the€requisite€premeditationĻand€deliberation€may€be€inferred€from€the€defendantššs€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€uponĻan€unarmed€victim;€the€cruelty€of€the€killing;€declarations€by€the€defendant€of€anĻintent€to€kill;€the€defendantššs€procurement€of€a€weapon;€a€defendantššs€preparationsĻprior€to€a€killing€for€concealment€of€the€crime;€and€calmness€immediately€after€theĻkilling.€€ņņState€v.€Pikeóó,€978€S.W.2d€904,€914€(Tenn.€1998),€ņņcert.€deniedóó,€ņņ€€€€óó€U.S.€ņņ€€€€óó,€ņņ€€€Š ą.€%( Šóó€S.Ct.€ņņ€€€€óó€(1999).Š Ą0`'* ŠĢą Œ ąą ä ąIn€this€case,€the€appellant€did€not€deny€that€he€killed€his€wife€onĻOctober€1,€1996.€€The€sole€issue€at€trial€was€the€appellantššs€mental€state€at€the€timeĻof€the€killing.€€We€conclude€that€the€record€amply€supports€the€juryššs€finding€of€anŠ @8ą.2 Šintentional,€premeditated,€and€deliberate€killing.€€As€noted€earlier,€the€record€reflectsĻthat€the€appellant€and€the€victim€had€a€troubled€marital€relationship€and€were€in€theĻmidst€of€a€separation€at€the€time€of€Mrs.€Durhamššs€death.€€The€appellant€believedĻthat€his€wife€was€having€an€affair€and,€several€weeks€prior€to€the€killing,€hadĻthreatened€his€wife.׃ׯ ƒ]#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś2Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€The€appellant€himself€testified€that€he€decided€to€kill€his€wifeŠ ą€ Šand€himself€at€least€forty„five€minutes€before€fatally€shooting€his€wife€eight€times.€€InĻpreparation€for€the€killing,€he€removed€a€rifle€and€a€single€shot€shotgun€from€the€wallĻof€his€home€and€loaded€both€guns.€€He€placed€both€guns€in€his€car€and€drove€to€hisĻwifeššs€workplace,€where€he€quietly€watched€his€wife€for€fourteen€seconds.€€He€thenĻselected€from€his€car€the€rifle€with€its€high€capacity€magazine€and€what€he€believedĻto€be€hollow€point€bullets.€€Returning€to€the€store,€the€appellant€announced€hisĻintention€before€he€began€firing€the€rifle€at€Mrs.€Durham.€€Afterwards,€he€departedĻcalmly.€€ņņCompareóó€ņņState€v.€Kendricksóó,€947€S.W.2d€875,€880€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Š ą€ Š1996)(this€court€upheld€the€juryššs€finding€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€when€theĻdefendant€drove€to€the€gas€station€where€his€wife€worked,€calmly€asked€her€to€comeĻoutside,€shot€his€wife,€and€left€without€rendering€assistance).ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąDespite€this€overwhelming€evidence,€the€appellant€argued€at€trial€that,Ļat€the€time€of€the€killing,€his€intoxication€with€alcohol€and€Valium€and€his€anxiety€andĻdependent€personality€disorders€precluded€any€premeditation€or€deliberation.€€First,Ļunder€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€šš€39„11„503(a)€(1997),€intoxication,€whether€voluntary€orĻinvoluntary,€is€admissible€in€evidence€if€it€is€relevant€to€negate€a€culpable€mentalĻstate.€€However,€whether€a€defendant€is€too€far€intoxicated€to€premeditate€andĻdeliberate€prior€to€a€killing€is€a€question€for€the€jury€to€determine.€€ņņSee,€e.g.,óó€ņņState€v.Š €4 +. ŠArnoldóó,€No.€81,€1988€WL€87671,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€August€25,Š `6-0 Š1988)(upholding€the€appellantššs€convictions€for€premeditated€first€degree€murderĻwhen€the€evidence€demonstrated€that,€soon€after€the€killings,€the€appellantššs€bloodĻalcohol€level€was€0.16€and€he€had€a€Diazepam€level€of€0.1).€€In€this€case,€the€juryĻwas€entirely€justified€in€concluding€that,€despite€his€intoxication,€the€appellant€wasĻcapable€of€forming€the€requisite€culpable€mental€state.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąSecond,€under€Tennessee€law,€evidence€of€a€mental€disease€or€defectĻthat€does€not€rise€to€the€level€of€an€insanity€defense€is€nevertheless€admissible€toĻnegate€elements€of€specific€intent,€including€premeditation€and€deliberation€in€a€firstĻdegree€murder€case.€€ņņState€v.€Phippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€138,€149€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Š @ą Š1994).€€ņņSee€alsoóó€ņņState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679,€688„690€(Tenn.€1997),€ņņcert.€deniedóó,€ņņ€Š  Ą Š€€óó€U.S.€ņņ€€€€óó,€118€S.Ct.€2348€(1998);€ņņState€v.€Abramsóó,€935€S.W.2d€399,€402€(Tenn.Š   Š1996).€€Again,€however,€this€court€may€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€ĻņņPruettóó,€788€S.W.2d€at€561.€€Accordingly,€we€must€defer€to€a€juryššs€determination€thatŠ Ą!` Šthe€appellant€was€capable€of€forming€the€requisite€intent€if€supported€by€evidenceĻadduced€at€trial.€€ņņState€v.€Perryóó,€No.€01C01„9710„CC„00467,€1999€WL€233522,€at€*8Š €%  Š(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€April€22,€1999).ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąThe€State€offered€no€medical€testimony€to€refute€Dr.€WishartššsĻcontention€that€the€appellant€was€incapable€of€premeditating€and€deliberating€hisĻwifeššs€murder.€€However,€in€the€context€of€the€defense€of€insanity€and€the€StateššsĻburden€to€prove€a€defendantššs€sanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€our€supreme€courtĻhas€observed€that€a€jury€is€not€required€to€accept€the€testimony€of€a€psychiatrist€toĻthe€exclusion€of€lay€testimony€or€to€the€exclusion€of€evidence€of€actions€of€aĻdefendant€inconsistent€with€the€expertššs€testimony.€€ņņEdwards€v.€Stateóó,€540€S.W.2dŠ `6-0 Š641,€646€(Tenn.€1976).€€Similarly,€in€the€context€of€an€allegation€of€š šdiminishedŠ @8ą.2 Šcapacityšš€and€the€Stateššs€burden€to€prove€premeditation€and€deliberation,€the€juryĻwas€not€required€to€accept€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Wishart€to€the€exclusion€of€all€otherĻevidence.€€In€fact,€the€record€overwhelmingly€contradicts€Dr.€Wishartššs€conclusionĻthat€the€appellant€was€so€š šoverwhelmed€with€emotionsšš€or€š šout€of€control€of€hisĻthinkingšš€as€to€preclude€premeditation€and€deliberation.ÓÓń?/ńœń`/ń׃×ń`/ńń`/ń׃×ń`/ńŻ ƒ]#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś3Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  כń?/ń€€ÓͰÓThis€issue€is€without€merit.ņņņ ņŠ ą€ ŠĢóób.ą Œ ąPrior€Threatening€Statement€by€the€Appellant€Toward€the€Victimó óŠ  @  Šą Œ ąą ä ąThe€appellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€admitted€Ms.ĻCoffeyššs€testimony€that€the€appellant€had€threatened€Joyce€Durham€several€weeksĻprior€to€the€murder.€€Citing€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401€and€403,€the€appellant€argues€that€theĻtestimony€was€irrelevant€and€unfairly€prejudicial,€and€that€its€admission€therebyĻviolated€the€appellantššs€right€to€due€process€of€law€under€the€Tennessee€and€federalĻconstitutions.€€The€State€argues€in€turn€that€Ms.€Coffeyššs€testimony€was€relevant€toĻthe€appellantššs€motive€and€œintent,›€and€that€any€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€to€theĻappellant€was€outweighed€by€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ļ404(b).ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąAs€noted€earlier,€Ms.€Coffee€testified€that,€several€weeks€prior€to€Mrs.ĻDurhamššs€murder,€the€appellant€called€his€wife€at€work€and€stated€that,€if€she€did€notĻreturn€home,€she€knew€what€would€happen€to€her.€€The€trial€court€admitted€theĻtestimony€following€a€jury„out€hearing.€€The€court€agreed€with€the€State€that€Ms.ĻCoffeyššs€testimony€was€relevant€to€the€appellantššs€motive€and€intent€and€that€thereŠ Ą0`'* Šwas€no€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€to€the€appellant.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąIn€determining€the€admissibility€of€evidence,€a€trial€court€must€make€aĻthreshold€determination€of€relevance.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401€defines€relevant€evidenceĻas€š ševidence€having€any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€ofĻconsequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€œthan›Ļit€would€be€without€the€evidence.šš€€This€court€has€further€explained,ĢÓÓą8 Œ ąą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąš šššRelevancy€is€not€an€inherent€characteristic€of€any€itemĻof€evidence€but€exists€only€as€a€relation€between€an€itemĻof€evidence€and€a€matter€properly€provable€in€the€case.ššššŠ ä Š ä Š  ŠĢÓyøÓņņState€v.€Davisóó,€No.€03C01„9511„CC„00360,€1997€WL€184771,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.Š @ą ŠApp.€1997)(citation€omitted).€€Relevant€evidence€is€generally€admissible,€Tenn.€R.ĻEvid.€402,€but€even€relevant€evidence€may€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€isĻsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,Ļor€misleading€the€jury.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)€specifically€provides€that€evidence€of€prior€badĻacts€by€a€defendant€is€not€relevant€to€prove€the€character€of€the€defendant€and€toĻshow€action€in€conformity€with€a€character€trait.€€However,€such€evidence€is€relevantĻto€issues€including€a€defendantššs€motive€and€intent.€€ņņState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679,Š  +Ą!$ Š707€(Tenn.€1997),€ņņcert.€deniedóó,€ņņ€€€€óó€U.S.€ņņ€€€€óó,€118€S.Ct.€2348€(1998).€€As€under€Tenn.Š - #& ŠR.€Evid.€403,€the€trial€court€must€determine€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)(3)€whetherĻthe€probative€value€of€the€evidence€is€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€ĻWe€note,€however,€that€the€test€in€Rule€404(b)€for€balancing€probative€value€againstĻprejudicial€effect€is€more€stringent€that€the€test€set€forth€in€Rule€403.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņState€v.Š €4 +. ŠDuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€654€(Tenn.€1997).Š `6-0 ŠŠ @8ą.2 Šą Œ ąą ä ąThe€admissibility€of€a€defendantššs€prior€threats€to€a€victim€in€a€murderĻprosecution€is€subject€to€Rule€404(b).€€ņņSee,€e.g.,óó€ņņState€v.€Nicholsóó,€No.€01C01„9704„Š @ ą ŠCR„00158,€1998€WL€468638,€at€*12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€August€12,Ļ1998),€ņņperm.€to€appeal€grantedóó,€(Tenn.€1999);€ņņState€v.€Gunteróó,€No.€03C01„9605„CC„Š   Š00183,€1997€WL€798779,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€December€17,€1997),Ļņņperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1998);€ņņState€v.€Collieróó,€No.€03C01„9602„CR„00072,Š Ą`  Š1997€WL€9722,€at€*8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€January€14,€1997).€€A€trialĻcourtššs€determination€pursuant€to€Rule€404(b)€will€not€be€overturned€absent€anĻabuse€of€discretion.€€ņņVannóó,€976€S.W.2d€at€102.׃ׯ ƒ]#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś4Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€We€see€no€reason€in€this€case€toŠ ` Šdisturb€the€trial€courtššs€ruling.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąIt€has€long€been€accepted€in€Tennessee€that€prior€threats€by€aĻdefendant€to€a€victim€in€a€murder€prosecution€may€be€relevant€to€prove€aĻdefendantššs€motive€or€intent€in€a€murder€prosecution€and,€therefore,€admissible€inĻevidence.€€ņņState€v.€Hunteróó,€No.€01C01„9506„CR„00176,€1996€WL€473999,€at€*3Š  #@ Š(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€August€22,€1996).€€ņņSee€alsoóó€ņņState€v.€Smithóó,€868Š €%  ŠS.W.2d€561,€575€(Tenn.€1993);€ņņNicholsóó,€No.€01C01„9704„CR„00158,€1998€WLŠ `'  Š468638,€at€*12;€ņņCollieróó,€No.€03C01„9602„CR„00072,€1997€WL€9722,€at€*8.€€TheŠ @)ą" Šappellant€argues€that€the€statement€at€issue€in€this€case€was€so€vague€that€it€revealsĻnothing€about€the€appellantššs€intent.€€Essentially,€the€appellant€argues€that€hisĻstatement€to€the€victim,€that€she€knew€what€would€happen€if€she€failed€to€returnĻhome,€was€susceptible€to€any€number€of€interpretations.€€According€to€the€appellant,Ļany€probative€value€of€the€statement€was€therefore€outweighed€by€the€danger€ofĻunfair€prejudice.Š €4 +. Їą Œ ąą ä ąWe€find€our€decision€in€ņņState€v.€Hunteróó,€No.€01C01„9506„CR„00176,Š `  Š1996€WL€473999,€at€**3„4,€to€be€analogous€to€the€instant€case.€€In€ņņHunteróó,€the€StateŠ @ ą Šintroduced€testimony€œthat›€the€defendant€informed€his€œfather„in„law€four€days€prior€toĻshooting€the€victim›€that€the€victim€would€š špay.šš€€ņņId.óó€at€*1.€€We€concluded€that€theŠ   Šdefendantššs€statement€was€highly€probative€on€the€issue€of€intent€and€affirmed€theĻtrial€courtššs€admission€of€the€testimony.€€ņņId.óó€at€**3„4.€€Similarly,€the€appellantššs€priorŠ Ą`  Šstatement€in€this€case€was€highly€probative€on€the€issue€of€his€intent.€€We€submitĻthat,€within€the€bounds€of€rationality,€it€is€impossible€to€interpret€the€appellantššsĻstatement€as€anything€other€that€a€threat€to€harm€Mrs.€Durham.€€As€to€the€prejudicialĻimpact€of€the€appellantššs€statement€upon€the€jury,€any€evidence€is€prejudicial.€€ņņDavisóó,Š @ą ŠNo.€03C01„9511„CC„00360,€1997€WL€184771,€at€*3.€€The€issue€is€one€of€simpleĻfairness.€€ņņId.óó€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€courtššs€ruling€was€eminently€fair€andŠ   Šconsistent€with€due€process€of€law.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ĢĢņ ņc.ą Œ ąó ó€€ņņņ ņVictimššs€Prior€Statementsó óóóŠ  #@ Šą Œ ąą ä ąThe€appellant€additionally€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneouslyĻprohibited€him€from€introducing€Kara€Higginsšš€testimony,€describing€her€telephoneĻconversation€with€Mrs.€Durham€on€the€evening€before€the€murder.€€During€thisĻconversation,€Mrs.€Durham€recounted€another€telephone€conversation€between€herĻand€the€œappellantń8/ń€on€the€same€eveningń8/ń.›€€The€appellant€asserts€that€Mrs.€DurhamššsĻstatements€to€Ms.€Higgins€were€relevant€to€his€state€of€mind€at€the€time€of€theĻmurder.€€Additionally,€while€conceding€that€the€victimššs€statements€constituteĻhearsay,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€statements€were€admissible€pursuant€toĻTenn.€R.€Evid.€œ803(3),€the€š šstate€of€mindšš€exception€to€the€general€prohibitionĻagainst€hearsay.›€€The€appellant€concludes€that€the€trial€courtššs€ruling€denied€him€dueĻprocess€of€law.€Š @8ą.2 Їą Œ ąą ä ąThe€State€responds€that,€despite€the€trial€courtššs€invitation,€theĻappellant€did€not€pursue€a€jury„out€hearing€for€the€purpose€of€determining€theĻadmissibility€of€this€testimony.€€Therefore,€the€State€asserts€that€the€appellant€hasĻwaived€this€issue€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€Additionally,€the€State€arguesĻthat€any€error€was€harmless€as€the€disputed€evidence€had€already€been€presentedĻto€the€jury€during€Ms.€Coffeyššs€testimony.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ļ52(a).€€ņņSee€alsoóó€ņņState€v.€Cookóó,€816€S.W.2d€322,€326€(Tenn.€1991)Ō‡ X\'XXX\'Ō(citing€ņņChapmanŠ  @  Šv.€Californiaóó,€386€U.S.€18,€87€S.Ct.€824€œ(1967)Ō#†X\'XX X\'(Ņ#Ōń9/ń€ń9/ń(Ō‡ X\'XXX\'Ōerror›€of€constitutional€dimensions€willŠ €  Šrequire€reversal€of€a€criminal€conviction€unless€a€reviewing€court€determines€that€theĻconstitutional€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt).Ō#†X\'XX X\'ŠŅ#ŌŠ @ą ŠĢą Œ ąą ä ąInitially,€the€State€has€apparently€confused€in€its€brief€Mrs.€DurhamššsĻtelephone€conversation€with€the€appellant€on€the€night€prior€to€the€murder€and€theĻtelephone€conversation€several€weeks€earlier€during€which€the€appellant€threatenedĻMrs.€Durham.€€Ms.€Coffey€only€testified€concerning€the€latter€telephoneĻconversation.€€Moreover,€the€record€reveals€that€the€State€is€incorrect€in€assertingĻthat€the€appellant€did€not€pursue€a€jury„out€hearing€concerning€Kara€HigginsššĻtestimony.€€ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąPrior€to€trial,€the€State€submitted€a€motion€to€the€trial€court,€asking€thatĻthe€trial€court€instruct€defense€counsel€to€approach€the€bench€prior€to€elicitingĻtestimony€concerning€any€statements€by€the€victim.€€During€a€pre„trial€hearing,€theĻState€specifically€cited€possible€testimony€by€the€appellantššs€and€the€victimššsĻdaughter€describing€a€telephone€conversation€with€her€mother€on€the€night€beforeĻthe€murder.ĢŠ @8ą.2 Šą Œ ąą ä ąDuring€this€pre„trial€hearing,€the€defense€attorney€described€theĻdaughterššs€expected€testimony:ĢÓÓą8 Œ ąą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąJoyce€Durham,€had€after€speaking€with€[the€appellant]€onĻthe€telephone€in€response€to€that,€had€called€herĻdaughter€immediately€thereafter€and€made€statements€inĻa€very€exaggeratedly€upset€state,€and€said€to€theĻdaughter€that,€š šVerlin€just€called€mešš,€used€some€ratherĻgraphic€language€and€said€in€fact,€the€pertinent€part,€thatĻshe€said,€š šWell,€what€did€you€do€when€he€called?šš€andĻshe€said,€š šI€hung€up€on€him.€€I€hung€up.ššÓMŲÓŠ ä Š ä Š  ŠThe€defense€attorney€argued€to€the€trial€court€that€the€daughterššs€testimony€wasĻrelevant€to€the€appellantššs€state€of€mind€at€the€time€of€the€murder.€€According€toĻcounsel,€the€appellant€intended€to€testify€that€his€actions€were€precipitated€by€hisĻtelephone€conversation€with€his€wife.€€Additionally,€defense€counsel€noted€that€theĻdaughterššs€testimony€was€particularly€critical,€because€the€appellant€could€not€recallĻwhen€the€conversation€with€his€wife€had€occurred.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąAfter€hearing€argument€by€counsel,€the€trial€judge€stated€that€he€wouldĻneed€to€hear€the€witnessšš€testimony€before€ruling€upon€its€admissibility.€€Accordingly,Ļhe€granted€the€Stateššs€motion€and€ordered€defense€counsel€to€approach€the€benchĻprior€to€eliciting€the€aforementioned€testimony.€€The€court€opined,€however,€that€theĻtestimony€was€š švery€likely€hearsay€within€hearsay€and€[would]€be€excluded.šš€€€€ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąPrior€to€the€presentation€of€the€appellantššs€proof€and€in€accordanceĻwith€the€trial€courtššs€order,€defense€counsel€indicated€that€he€wished€to€make€anĻoffer€of€proof€to€the€court€outside€the€juryššs€presence.€€He€explained€that€he€wantedĻto€introduce€the€testimony€of€Kara€Higgins,€the€appellantššs€and€the€victimššs€daughter.€ĻAccording€to€defense€counsel,€Ms.€Higgins€would€testify€that,€at€the€appellantššsĻrequest,€she€called€her€mother€on€the€evening€prior€to€the€murder.€€Ms.€HigginsŠ P7š-1 Šconveyed€to€Mrs.€Durham€the€appellantššs€request€that€the€victim€accompany€theĻappellant€and€their€grandchildren€to€a€restaurant€on€the€occasion€of€their€weddingĻanniversary.€€Soon€after€concluding€this€telephone€conversation,ĢÓÓą8 Œ ąą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ą[t]he€decedent€called€[Ms.€Higgins]€back€in€a€fit€of€anger,Ļanger€directed€toward€the€other€daughter,€Sherry,€andĻthat€she€says,€I€had€to€slap€Sherry€over€her€boyfriendĻand€being€mean€to€my€granddaughter,€and€to€get€evenĻwith€me,€Sherry€has€told€your€daddy€about€me€andĻanother€man€because€he€called€me€at€the€store€andĻasked€me€about€it.€€And€Kara€would€then€testify,€I€askedĻMother,€well€Mother,€what€did€you€say€to€Daddy?€€AndĻshe€will€„„€she€will€testify€that€the€mother€said,€I€hung€upĻon€him.Š ä Š ä Š  ŠĢÓ įÓDefense€counsel€again€argued€to€the€trial€court€that€the€testimony€was€relevant€toĻthe€appellantššs€state€of€mind.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąThe€record€suggests€that€defense€counsel€was€prepared€to€presentĻMs.€Higginsšš€testimony€to€the€trial€court€during€this€jury„out€hearing.€Nevertheless,€onĻthe€basis€of€defense€counselššs€summation€of€the€proposed€testimony,€the€courtĻconcluded€that€the€evidence€was€inadmissible.€€The€court€stated€that€š šwhat€theĻdeceased€told€her€daughter€has€no€relevance€to€any€issue€in€the€case.€.€.€.€I€seeĻabsolutely€no€relevance€in€that€and€„„€and€it€will€not€be€allowed.€[The€appellant]€canĻtestify€to€all€those€matters.ššĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąThus,€we€conclude€that€the€appellant€has€preserved€this€issue€forĻappeal,€and€we€address€the€merits€of€the€appellantššs€argument.€€Again,€the€appellantĻconcedes€that€the€proposed€testimony€constituted€hearsay.€€š šššHearsayšš€is€aĻstatement,€other€than€one€made€by€the€declarant€while€testifying€at€the€trial€orĻhearing,€offered€in€evidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted.šš€€Tenn.€R.ĻEvid.€801(c).€€Hearsay€is€inadmissible€in€Tennessee€unless€it€falls€within€anŠ P7š-1 Šenumerated€exception.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€802;€ņņState€v.€Braganóó,€920€S.W.2d€227,€242Š `  Š(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Moreover,€hearsay€within€hearsay€is€inadmissible€unlessĻeach€part€of€the€combined€statements€conforms€with€an€exception€to€the€hearsayĻrule.€€ņņSee,€e.g.,óó€ņņState€v.€Tolbertóó,€No.€03C01„9707„CR„00325,€1998€WL€694931,€atŠ   Š*13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€October€7,€1998),€ņņperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Š ą€ Š(Tenn.€1999).ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąœTo€summarize,€›Kara€Higginsšš€proposed€testimony€consisted€of€Mrs.ĻDurhamššs€statements€on€the€night€before€the€murder€that€(1)€Mrs.€Durham€hadĻspoken€with€the€appellant€on€the€telephone€on€that€evening;€(2)€the€appellant€hadĻaccused€her€of€having€an€affair;€and€(3)€she€had€hung€up€on€the€appellant.€€We€firstĻnote€that€this€is€not€a€case€of€hearsay€within€hearsay.€€Had€the€victim€been€able€toĻtestify€concerning€the€appellantššs€accusation€that€she€was€having€an€affair,€theĻappellantššs€accusation€would€have€been€admissible.€€The€accusation€did€notĻconstitute€hearsay,€as€it€was€not€proffered€as€proof€of€the€fact€contained€in€theĻaccusation,€but€rather€as€proof€that€the€accusation€had€been€made€and€as€proof€ofĻthe€appellantššs€mental€state.€€ņņSee,€e.g.,óó€ņņState€v.€Wesemannóó,€No.€03C01„9404„CR„Š `'  Š00144,€1997€WL€348869,€at€*8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€June€25,€1997),Ļņņperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1998).€€ņņSee€alsoóó€ņņState€v.€Roeóó,€No.€02C01„9702„CR„Š  +Ą!$ Š00054,€1998€WL€7107,€at€*11€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€January€12,€1998),Ļņņperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.),€ņņcert.€deniedóó,€ņņ€€€€óó€U.S.€ņņ€€€€óó,€ņņ€€€€óó€S.Ct.€ņņ€€€€óó€(1999)(š š[t]heŠ ą.€%( Škey€to€determining€whether€a€statement€is€hearsay€is€the€purpose€for€which€it€isϜofferedńd/ńššńd/ń).›€€However,€Mrs.€Durhamššs€statements€as€recounted€by€her€daughter,Ļincluding€Mrs.€Durhamššs€account€of€the€appellantššs€accusation,€ņņdidóó€constituteŠ €4 +. Šhearsay,€and€we€conclude€that€the€statements€were€not€encompassed€by€theĻhearsay€exception€set€forth€in€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(3).Š @8ą.2 Їą Œ ąą ä ąRule€œ803(3)›€provides:ĢÓÓą8 Œ ąą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąA€statement€of€the€declarantššs€then€existing€state€ofĻmind,€emotion,€sensation,€or€physical€condition€(such€asĻintent,€plan,€motive,€design,€mental€feeling,€pain,€andĻbodily€health),€but€not€including€a€statement€of€memoryĻor€belief€to€prove€the€fact€remembered€or€believed€.€.€.€ÓćšÓ.Š ä Š ä Š  ŠMrs.€Durhamššs€statements€were€clearly€statements€of€a€memory,€i.e.,€her€memory€ofĻthe€telephone€conversation€with€her€husband.€€Additionally,€the€appellant€intendedĻto€introduce€the€statements€to€prove€the€fact€remembered.€€Thus,€the€appellantššsĻreliance€upon€Rule€803(3)€is€mistaken.€€ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąMoreover,€the€appellant€has€repeatedly€argued€that€the€telephoneĻconversation€between€himself€and€Mrs.€Durham€on€the€night€before€the€murder€wasĻrelevant€to€prove€ņņhisóó€state€of€mind€at€the€time€of€the€murder.€€Our€supreme€court€andŠ   Šthis€court€have€held€that€only€the€ņņdeclarantššsóó€conduct€or€state€of€mind,€and€not€thatŠ ą€ Šof€some€third€person,€is€provable€by€this€exception.€€ņņState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2dŠ Ą!` Š161,€171€(Tenn.€1994);€ņņState€v.€Farmeróó,€927€S.W.2d€582,€595€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Š  #@ Š1996);€ņņState€v.€Lemingóó,€No.€01C01„9704„CR„00151,€1998€WL€707801,€at€*10Š €%  Š(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€October€9,€1998);€ņņState€v.€Hallóó,€No.€02C01„9703„CC„Š `'  Š00095,€1998€WL€208051,€at€*13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€April€29,€1998);€ņņRoeóó,Š @)ą" ŠNo.€02C01„9702„CR„00054,€1998€WL€7107,€at€*11;€ņņState€v.€Sherrodóó,€No.€01C01„Š  +Ą!$ Š9505„CR„00157,€1997€WL€34429,€at€*7,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€January€30,Ļ1997).€€Accordingly,€the€appellantššs€attempt€to€prove€his€state€of€mind€by€introducingĻMrs.€Durhamššs€statements€was€an€improper€use€of€the€state€of€mind€exception€to€theĻhearsay€rule.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąThe€trial€court€did€note€that€Mrs.€Durhamššs€statements€might€qualify€asĻan€excited€utterance€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(2).€€Rule€803(2)€provides€that€anŠ @8ą.2 Šexcited€utterance€is€excluded€from€the€hearsay€rule€and€defines€an€exited€utteranceĻas€š š[a]€statement€relating€to€a€startling€event€or€condition€made€while€the€declarantĻwas€under€the€stress€of€excitement€caused€by€the€event€or€condition.šš€€One€notedĻauthority€has€described€the€rationales€underlying€this€exception:ĢÓÓą8 Œ ąą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąFirst,€since€this€exception€applies€to€statements€where€itĻis€likely€there€was€a€lack€of€reflection€„€and€potentialĻfabrication€„€by€a€declarant€who€spontaneously€exclaimsĻa€statement€in€response€to€an€exciting€event,€there€isĻlittle€likelihood,€in€theory€at€least,€of€insincerity.€€RuleĻ803(2)€requires€that€the€declarant€must€labor€under€theĻstress€of€excitement€while€speaking.€.€.€.€€Second,Ļordinarily€the€statement€is€made€while€the€memory€of€theĻevent€is€still€fresh€in€the€declarantššs€mind.€€This€meansĻthat€the€out„of„court€statement€about€an€event€may€beĻmore€accurate€than€a€much€later€in„court€description€of€it.Š ä Š ä Š  ŠĢÓ‰śÓCohen,€Sheppeard,€and€Paine,€ņņTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceó󀚚€803(2).1,€at€532€(3dŠ  Ą Šed.€1995).ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąThus,€in€order€to€justify€reliance€upon€the€excited€utterance€exceptionĻto€the€hearsay€rule,€a€defendant€must€establish€three€elements.€€First,€he€mustĻdemonstrate€that€there€was€a€startling€event.€€ņņState€v.€Gordonóó,€952€S.W.2d€817,€820Š €%  Š(Tenn.€1997).€€š š[œT]he›€šševent€must€be€sufficiently€startling€to€suspend€the€normal,Ļreflective€thought€processes€of€the€declarant.šššš€ņņId.óó€(citation€omitted).€€Second,€theŠ @)ą" Šdeclarantššs€statement€must€relate€to€the€startling€event.€€ņņId.óó€€Third,€the€statementŠ  +Ą!$ Šmust€be€made€while€the€declarant€is€under€the€stress€or€excitement€from€the€eventĻor€condition.€€ņņId.óó€Š ą.€%( ŠĢą Œ ąą ä ąIn€this€case,€Mrs.€Durhamššs€telephone€conversation€with€her€husbandĻwas€arguably€a€startling€event.€€Moreover,€Mrs.€Durhamššs€statements€to€Ms.€HigginsĻdescribed€this€telephone€conversation.€€Finally,€Ms.€Higgins€apparently€intended€toĻtestify€that€Mrs.€Durham€recounted€the€telephone€conversation€to€her€immediatelyŠ @8ą.2 Šfollowing€the€conversation,€and€Mrs.€Durham€was€in€š ša€very€exaggeratedly€upsetĻstatešš€and€in€š ša€fit€of€anger.šš€€Accordingly,€Mrs.€Durhamššs€statements€wereĻadmissible€pursuant€to€the€excited€utterance€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąNevertheless,€defense€counsel€did€not€rely€upon€the€excited€utteranceĻexception€before€the€trial€court€and€does€not€rely€upon€it€now.€€Under€theseĻcircumstances,€the€appellant€has€waived€any€right€to€relief.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€ĻIn€any€case,€any€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€As€noted€by€theĻtrial€court,€the€appellant€himself€testified€concerning€the€conversation€at€issue.€ĻContrary€to€defense€counselššs€argument€to€the€court€prior€to€trial,€the€appellant€wasĻable€to€testify€that€the€conversation€occurred€the€night€before€the€murder.€€Moreover,Ļthe€appellantššs€sisters€testified€that€the€appellant€believed€his€wife€was€having€anĻaffair.€€Finally,€the€evidence€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€in€this€case€wasĻoverwhelming.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ĢĢņ ņd.ą Œ ąClosing€ArgumentŠ €%  Šą Œ ąœi.›ą ä ąScope€of€Rebuttal€Argumentó óŠ `'  Šą Œ ąą ä ąThe€appellant€next€argues€that€the€State€committed€prosecutorialĻmisconduct€during€closing€argument€by€exceeding€the€scope€of€rebuttal€argument.€ĻIn€reviewing€allegations€of€prosecutorial€misconduct,€this€court€must€first€determineĻwhether€misconduct€has€in€fact€occurred,€keeping€in€mind€the€trial€courtššs€wideĻdiscretion€in€controlling€the€argument€of€counsel.€€ņņState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,Š Ą0`'* Š515€(Tenn.€1997).€€This€discretion€is€rooted€in€the€principle€œthat›€closing€argument€isĻa€valuable€privilege€for€both€the€State€and€the€œdefense€and›€courts€should€afford€wideĻlatitude€to€counsel€in€presenting€final€argument€to€the€jury.€ņņState€v.€Cribbsóó,€967Š `6-0 ŠS.W.2d€773,€783€(Tenn.),€ņņcert.€deniedóó,€ņņ€€€€óó€U.S.€ņņ€€€€óó,€119€S.Ct.€343€(1998).€€Š @8ą.2 Їą Œ ąą ä ąGenerally,€the€bounds€of€proper€argument€are€established€by€the€factsĻin€evidence,€the€character€of€the€trial,€and€the€conduct€of€opposing€counsel.€€ņņState€v.Š @ ą ŠPulliamóó,€950€S.W.2d€360,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Moreover,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.Š  Ą ŠP.€29.1€provides€that€the€Stateššs€rebuttal€argument€is€š šlimited€to€the€subject€matterĻcovered€in€the€Stateššs€opening€argument€and€the€defendantššs€intervening€argument.šš€ĻThis€court€has€explained:ĢÓÓą8 Œ ąą8ä Œ (#Œ (#ąš šOrdinarily,€the€prosecutor€is€entitled€to€make€the€openingĻargument€and,€after€the€defendant€presents€hisĻargument,€the€prosecutor€is€entitled€to€make€the€closingĻargument€in€rebuttal.€€The€prosecutorššs€closing€argumentĻis€limited€in€scope;€he€is€allowed€only€to€reply€toĻarguments€made€by€the€defendant.€€To€allow€theĻprosecutor€to€introduce€new€matter€during€his€closingĻargument€would€deprive€defendant€of€the€opportunity€toĻrespond€thereto.ššŠ ä Š ä Š  ŠĢÓ' ÓņņWallis€v.€Stateóó,€546€S.W.2d€244,€247€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976)(citation€omitted).€Š   ŠĢą Œ ąą ä ąIf€the€appellant€establishes€prosecutorial€misconduct,€he€must€stillĻdemonstrate€that€the€improper€conduct€prejudicially€affected€the€verdict€in€his€case.€ĻņņHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(Tenn.€1965);€ņņJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2dŠ €%  Š340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€In€measuring€the€prejudicial€impact€of€anyĻmisconduct,€this€court€should€consider€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case;€anyĻcurative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€or€prosecutor;€the€intent€of€theĻprosecutor;€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errors;€andĻthe€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.€€ņņId.óóŠ ą.€%( ŠĢą Œ ąą ä ąThe€appellant€asserts€œthat€the€State€discussed›€during€rebuttalϜargument€Ms.€Coffeyššs€testimony€concerning€the€appellantššs€prior€threat€to€theĻvictim.€€The€appellant€notes€that€the€State€did€not€discuss€this€testimony€in€itsĻš šopeningšš€argument€and€the€appellant€did€not€address€Ms.€Coffeyššs€testimony€in€hisŠ @8ą.2 Šclosing€argument.€€The€record€reflects€that€defense€counsel€objected€to€the€StateššsĻrebuttal€argument.€€However,€the€trial€court€overruled€the€objection,€opining€that€theĻStateššs€argument€was€proper€rebuttal.€€On€appeal,€the€State€notes€that€most€of€theĻclosing€arguments€in€this€case,€including€the€appellantššs€closing€argument,€ń:/ńisń:/ńń;/ńareń;/ń€notĻincluded€in€the€record.€€Accordingly,€the€State€asserts€that€the€appellant€has€waivedĻthis€issue.€€ĢĢą Œ ąą ä ąThe€Stateššs€position€is€well€taken.€€The€appellant€carries€the€burden€ofĻensuring€that€the€record€on€appeal€conveys€a€fair,€accurate,€and€ņņcompleteóó€accountŠ ` Šof€what€has€transpired€with€respect€to€those€issues€that€are€the€bases€of€appeal.€ĻTenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€€ņņSee€alsoóó€ņņThompson€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€156,€172€(Tenn.Š  Ą ŠCrim.€App.€1997);€ņņState€v.€Utleyóó,€928€S.W.2d€448,€453€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€Š   ŠThis€court€is€precluded€from€considering€an€issue€when€the€record€does€not€containĻthe€necessary€transcript.€€ņņUtleyóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€453.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€isŠ Ą!` Šwaived.ĢĢņ ņą Œ ąii.ą ä ąMissing€Witness€Ruleó óŠ `'  Šą Œ ąą ä ąThe€appellant€also€argues€that€the€prosecutor€improperly€commentedĻduring€its€rebuttal€argument€upon€the€appellantššs€failure€to€call€his€daughter,€Ms.ĻSherry€Whaley,›€as€a€witness.€€The€appellant€contends€that€the€prosecutor€therebyĻattempted€to€shift€the€burden€of€proof€to€the€appellant€in€violation€of€his€right€to€dueĻprocess.€€In€response,€the€State€again€notes€that€the€record€is€incomplete.€ĻAdditionally,€the€State€argues€that€the€prosecutorššs€reference€to€the€missing€witnessĻwas€appropriate€pursuant€to€ņņDelk€v.€Stateóó,€590€S.W.2d€435,€440€(Tenn.€1979).€€Š €4 +. ŠĢą Œ ąą ä ąAbsent€the€entire€transcript€of€closing€arguments,€we€are€hesitant€toŠ @8ą.2 Šaddress€this€issue.€€Generally,€appellate€review€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€duringĻclosing€œargumentń