ÿWPCa  ‘#†þUN„ %Ò 0(Ø4  # 0l+ 0D— 0JÛ 0T% 0^y 0h× 0r? 0|± 0†- 0³ 1uC U,¸ 0dä U,HU>tU*²B)ÜDC AMH B•3²v~åvÓc D36 0@i 0d© 0  0Šœ 0 & 0´Æ 0Çz 0ÛA 0ï AO ÆZ 0D  0Dd D/¨ B× 1mô˜HP LaserJet 4LHPPCL5E,,,,0®ØP ×>^ I¶ P(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡o„p3|x”((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÔ YYY ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òJanuary€5,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pdstuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ý ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÔ€!ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€6~XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °‚Xª ¸ ™XÓÙ€€ÙßL€$&#;+'h|` ç `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALSÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àAPRIL€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNO.€01C01„9409„CC„00328Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àWARREN€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€CHARLES€D.€HASTONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌDARRYL€GENE€FARMER,à àà à)à à(First€Degree€Murder)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)ÌÌòòÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌóóÌDale€Potterà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€510à àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ309€W.€Morford€Streetà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌMcMinnville,€TN€37110Ì(Trial€Only)à àà àà àà àà àà àAmy€L.€TarkingtonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€Attorney€General€and€ReporterÌJohn€E.€Herbisonà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ2016€Eighth€Avenue€Southà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌNashville,€TN€€37204Ì(Appeal€Only)à àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€LockeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLarry€RossÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€Generalà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€410Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àProfessional€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMcMinnville,€TN€€37110ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED____________ÌÌÌJUDGMENT€OF€CONVICTION€VACATED€AND€REMANDED€FOR€FURTHERÏPROCEEDINGSÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÓÓà@ àOPINIONÌÓ X ÓThe€appellant,€Darryl€Gene€Farmer,€appeals€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€(b)Ïof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€from€his€conviction€of€murder€in€theÏfirst€degree€following€a€jury€trial€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Warren€County.€€The€appellantÏwas€sentenced€to€life€in€prison.€€In€this€appeal€he€presents€five€(5)€issues€for€ourÏreview.ÓÓÌÌ(1)à8 àWhether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€for€a€rational€trier€ofÏfact€to€find€the€appellant€guilty€of€first€degree€murderÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt;ÌÌ(2)€à8 àWhether€the€indictment€against€the€appellant€was€invalidÏbecause€of€irregularities€in€the€selection€of€the€venireÏand/or€the€presence€of€an€unauthorized€individual€duringÏgrand€jury€proceedings;ÌÌ(3)à8 àWhether€certain€statements€made€by€the€prosecutingÏattorneys€during€closing€argument€constitutedÏprosecutorial€misconduct;ÌÌ(4)à8 àWhether€the€trial€court€erroneously€admitted€into€evidenceÏstatements€made€by€the€appellant€on€the€night€of€hisÏarrest;ÌÌ(5)à àWhether€the€trial€court€erroneously€admitted€into€evidence€statementsÏà àà àà àmade€by€the€decedent.ÌÌÓÓAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€in€this€case,€the€applicable€law,€andÏarguments€of€counsel,€we€conclude€that€with€regard€to€issues€one€(1)€through€threeÏ(3)€no€reversible€error€appears€in€this€case.€€However,€€because€the€record€isÏinadequate€with€regard€to€whether€the€appellantðð€s€right€to€counsel€was€violatedÏduring€police€questioning,€we€remand€the€case€for€further€factual€findings€on€issueÏnumber€four€(4).€€We€conclude€that€error€exists€with€regard€to€issue€number€five€(5).ÌSince€the€appellant€has€challenged€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ïa€summary€of€the€facts€established€by€the€evidence€is€necessary.€€ÌOn€February€20,€1992,€the€body€of€Christopher€Boyd€was€discovered€on€anÏisolated,€dead„end€dirt€road€in€rural€Warren€County.€€It€was€apparent€to€the€membersÏof€the€Warren€County€Sheriff's€Department€who€initially€responded€following€theÏdiscovery€of€the€body€that€Christopher€Boyd€had€met€a€very€violent€death.€€The€victimÏhad€been€shot€at€least€once€in€the€head,€and€there€was€also€a€large€hole€in€the€backÏof€the€victim's€jacket.€€Initially,€Sheriff's€deputies€were€not€sure€if€the€hole€in€the€backÍof€the€jacket€had€been€caused€by€a€gunshot€wound€or€not.€€After€viewing€the€securedÏcrime€scene,€the€district€attorney€notified€the€T.B.I.€Crime€Lab,€and€personnel€fromÏthat€office€arrived€later€that€evening.€€ÌSpecial€Agent€Steve€Scott,€a€forensic€scientist€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation€Crime€Laboratory,€and€three€other€members€of€the€forensic€team€arrivedÏat€the€murder€scene€at€around€10:40€p.m.€on€the€evening€of€February€20,€1992.€ÏThere€were€many€shoe€tracks€and€tire€tracks€leading€up€to€the€area€where€the€bodyÏwas€discovered.€€After€the€body€and€other€evidence€surrounding€the€scene€had€beenÏphotographed,€the€victim€was€removed€to€a€hospital€in€McMinnville.€€Thereafter,€ScottÏand€his€team€recovered€some€small€bone€fragments€believed€to€have€come€from€theÏvictim's€head.€€One€such€bone€fragment€was€found€nine€feet€three€inches€from€theÏvictim's€body.€€Another€was€found€thirteen€feet€from€the€body,€and€still€another€wasÏfound€eleven€feet€ten€inches€from€the€body.€€ÌAfter€being€qualified€as€an€expert€in€firearms,€Scott€testified€that€he€found€andÏrecovered€a€slug€and€wadding€from€underneath€the€area€of€the€head€of€the€victim.€€ItÏwas€Agent€Scott's€opinion€that€the€wound€to€the€back€was€caused€by€a€twelve„gaugeÏshotgun€fired€from€a€distance€of€somewhere€between€five€and€seven€feet€from€theÏvictim.€€He€testified€that€the€presence€of€lead€residue€on€the€jacket€of€the€victim€couldÏindicate€that€the€weapon€was€fired€closer€that€five€feet.€€He€could€not€tell€the€specificÏgauge€of€the€gun€which€was€used€to€shoot€the€victim€in€the€head,€as€the€waddingsÍremoved€from€the€wound€were€too€mutilated.€€It€was€his€opinion,€however,€that€basedÏon€the€damage€to€the€skull€of€the€victim€and€the€location€of€the€slug€and€waddingsÏunderneath€the€skull,€that€the€victim€was€lying€with€his€head€against€the€ground€whenÏhe€was€shot€in€the€head.€€It€was€also€his€opinion€that€the€head€wound€had€beenÏinflicted€by€a€gun€which€had€been€fired€shortly€before€it€was€used€to€shoot€the€victimÏin€the€head€because€the€wound€to€the€face€was€consistent€with€an€injury€inflicted€fromÏa€gun€in€which€gas€pressure€had€built€up€subsequent€to€a€recent€discharge.€€ÌDr.€Gretel€Harlan€performed€an€autopsy€on€February€21,€1992.€€Dr.€HarlanÏtestified€that€the€shotgun€wound€to€the€victim's€back€was€in€the€near„wound€category,Ïbut€that€she€could€only€estimate€that€the€shot€was€fired€from€three€to€eighteen€feetÏfrom€the€victim.€€She€further€concluded€that€the€wound€to€the€skull€had€been€causedÏby€a€shotgun€slug.€€She€also€categorized€the€head€wound€as€a€near„wound.€€Dr.ÏHarlan€was€of€the€opinion€that€the€shotgun€wound€to€the€back€would€have€been€fatalÏwithin€a€matter€of€minutes€because€of€extensive€injury€to€the€victim's€right€lung.€€Dr.ÏHarlan€concluded€that€Mr.€Boyd€was€first€shot€in€the€back€and€then€in€the€head.€€ÌDoug€Martin,€an€acquaintance€of€both€the€appellant€and€the€victim,€testifiedÏthat€approximately€one€week€prior€to€the€victim's€death,€the€appellant€told€Mr.€MartinÏthat€the€victim€was€informing€the€police€of€the€appellant's€drug„selling€activities€andÏthat€Mr.€Boyd€needed€to€be€killed.€€The€appellant€asked€Mr.€Martin€to€assist€him€inÏkilling€the€victim.€€Mr.€Martin€refused.€€Martin€thereafter€told€the€victim€what€theÍappellant€had€said€about€him.€€The€victim,€according€to€Mr.€Martin,€did€not€believeÏthat€the€appellant€would€harm€him,€and,€in€fact,€Christopher€Boyd€told€Martin€that€heÏand€the€appellant€had€plans€to€steal€twenty„five€pounds€of€marijuana.€€ÌSteve€Pleasant,€likewise€an€acquaintance€of€both€the€victim€and€the€appellant,Ïtestified€that€he€saw€the€victim€on€the€afternoon€of€February€19,€1992,€when€the€victimÏgave€Mr.€Pleasant€a€ride€home€from€work.€€On€that€occasion,€€Pleasant€saw€the€victimÏand€the€appellant€engage€in€a€conversation€on€the€street,€and€thereafter€theÏappellant€followed€the€victim's€truck€to€Mr.€Pleasant's€house€where€Mr.€Pleasant€wasÏdropped€off.€€The€victim€told€Mr.€Pleasant€that€he€was€going€to€buy€the€appellant'sÏcar,€and€that€he€wanted€to€drive€it€before€he€bought€it.€€Lastly,€Mr.€Pleasant€testifiedÏthat€the€victim€told€him€that€he€and€the€appellant€were€going€to€a€barn€to€get€someÏmarijuana.€€ÌJessie€Michael€Eldridge,€Jr.,€a€friend€of€the€appellant,€testified€that€on€FebruaryÏ19,€1992,€the€appellant€called€him€and€said€he€needed€to€speak€with€him.€€EldridgeÏtestified€that€the€appellant€seemed€jumpy€and€nervous€when€he€arrived.€€Farmer€toldÏEldridge€that€he€had€killed€the€victim€because€of€his€belief€that€the€victim€wasÏinforming€on€him.€€He€told€Eldridge€that€he€shot€the€victim€once€in€the€back€and€onceÏin€the€face.€€The€appellant€further€said€that€he€and€the€victim€were€on€the€way€to€stealÏmarijuana€when€they€pulled€up€to€the€side€of€the€road€and€started€walking€to€whereÏthe€marijuana€was€located.€€As€they€were€walking€up€the€dirt€road€the€victim€said,Í"You€ain't€going€to€shoot€me,€are€you?"€€The€appellant€told€Mr.€Eldridge€that€heÏassured€the€victim€that€he€was€not€going€to€shoot€him€because€they€were€"goodÏbuddies."€€However,€when€the€victim€turned€away€he€shot€him€in€the€back€and€thenÏshot€him€in€the€face€with€a€twelve„gauge€shotgun.€€The€appellant€said€that€when€heÏshot€the€victim€in€the€head€it€blew€his€face€away,€and€that€after€he€shot€the€victim€heÏburned€the€victim's€clothes.€€The€appellant€asked€him€to€provide€an€alibi€for€himÏwhich,€at€first,€Eldridge€did€provide.€€ÌRicky€Johnson€testified€that€during€the€early€part€of€1992,€the€appellant€askedÏto€borrow€Johnson's€twenty„gauge€shotgun,€saying€that€he€was€going€hunting.€ÏJohnson€recalled€that€the€appellant€returned€the€gun€approximately€two€hours€afterÏhe€had€borrowed€it.€€Mr.€Johnson€testified€that€he€did€not€have€further€contact€with€theÏappellant€again€until€a€year€or€so€later.€€At€that€time,€the€appellant€called€Mr.€JohnsonÏand€said,€"Ricky,€that€gun€I€borrowed€from€you„„I€shot€a€man€with€it."€€ApproximatelyÏthree€months€later,€the€defendant€called€again€and€said,€"I€didn't€kill€nobody€withÏthat."€€ÌFollowing€the€murder€of€Christopher€Boyd€an€extensive€investigation€began,Ïand€Agent€Danny€Wix,€a€seventeen„year€veteran€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation,€entered€the€case€about€twelve€days€following€the€discovery€of€Boyd'sÏbody.€€Paralleling€the€murder€investigation,€authorities€initiated€an€undercover€drugÏoperation€in€Warren€County.€€During€the€course€of€the€murder€investigation€and€theÍdrug€operation,€the€appellant€became€a€prime€suspect€in€the€murder€of€the€victim.€€€AtÏone€point,€Mike€Eldridge€was€also€a€suspect.€€Both€were€interviewed€in€the€monthsÏfollowing€the€discovery€of€the€body,€and€both€denied€any€involvement€in€the€killing.€€ÌOn€January€22,€1993,€both€the€appellant€and€Mike€Eldridge€were€arrestedÏseparately€in€relation€to€the€undercover€drug€operation.€€They€were€brought€to€theÏWarren€County€District€Attorney€General's€office,€and€Agent€Wix€first€interviewedÏEldridge.€€Thereafter,€Wix€interviewed€the€appellant€after€advising€him€of€his€òòMirandaóóÏrights.€€Initially,€the€appellant€denied€any€involvement€in€the€murder€of€ChristopherÏBoyd.€€Later€in€the€evening,€however,€Agent€Wix€brought€Mike€Eldridge€into€theÏinterview€room€where€the€appellant€was€located,€and€Eldridge€advised€the€appellantÏthat€he€had€given€the€authorities€a€statement€implicating€the€appellant€in€the€killing€ofÏthe€victim.€€ÌSoon€thereafter,€the€appellant€indicated€that€he€would€be€willing€to€give€aÏstatement€if€he€could€be€promised€that€he€would€not€receive€the€death€penalty.€€WixÏtestified€that€both€he€and€the€district€attorney€general€advised€the€appellant€that€noÏsuch€assurance€could€be€made,€and,€after€first€telephoning€his€parents,€the€appellantÏgave€a€statement€which€was€reduced€to€writing€by€one€of€the€assistant€districtÏattorneys€general.€€ÌIn€the€statement,€which€was€read€into€evidence€before€the€jury,€the€appellantÏindicated€that€he€and€Boyd€got€together€on€February€19,1992,€after€leaving€work€atÍMcMinnville€Manufacturing.€€The€appellant€stated€that€Christopher€Boyd€approachedÏhim€about€a€plan€to€steal€some€marijuana€from€a€person€identified€as€Harry€Bess,Ïwhom€the€appellant€claimed€to€not€know.€€While€waiting€for€it€to€become€dusky€dark,Ïthe€appellant€said€that€he€and€Boyd€drove€around,€consuming€quantities€of€beer€andÏValium.€€The€victim€advised€the€appellant€that€they€both€needed€to€be€armed€whenÏthey€went€to€steal€the€marijuana,€and€it€was€at€that€point€that€the€appellant€went€to€theÏhome€of€Ricky€Johnson€and€borrowed€a€shotgun€and€some€shells.€€The€appellantÏsaid€that€he€was€aware€that€the€victim€was€already€armed€with€a€twenty„five€caliberÏautomatic€pistol,€which€the€victim€normally€carried€with€him.€€ÌThe€appellant€stated€that€after€they€parked€their€car€on€McGee€Cove€Road€andÏbegan€walking€up€the€dirt€lane€with€Boyd€in€the€lead,€Boyd€turned€and€said,€"You€gotÏmy€pot,€man."€€The€appellant€stated€that€when€Boyd€made€the€accusation€Boyd€hadÏhis€gun€in€his€hand€and€made€a€threat€to€the€appellant.€€At€that€point,€the€appellantÏstated€he€feared€that€Boyd€was€going€to€shoot€him,€so€he€shot€Boyd.€€He€said€he€didÏnot€remember€how€many€times€he€shot.€€After€shooting€Boyd,€the€appellant€said€heÏwent€back€to€his€car€and€left,€returning€the€borrowed€shotgun€to€Ricky€Johnson.€€AfterÏleaving€Johnson's€home,€the€appellant€stated€that€he€drove€to€the€home€of€MikeÏEldridge€and€advised€Eldridge€what€had€occurred.€€ÌThe€appellant€did€not€introduce€any€evidence€at€the€trial.ÌÌà@ àò òSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌThe€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial€was€insufficient€toÏsupport€his€conviction€for€first„degree€murder.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€there€wasÏnot€sufficient€evidence€to€establish€the€essential€elements€of€premeditation€andÏdeliberation.€€We€disagree.€€ÌWhere€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€forÏthis€court€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÏcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,Ï61€L.€Ed.€2d€560€(1979);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983);ÏT.R.A.P.€13€(e).€€ÌA€guilty€verdict,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€theÏwitnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€any€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State's€theory.€€òòStateÏv.€Hatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€1978).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€to€all€reasonable€inferences€whichÏmight€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€836€(Tenn.€1978).€€AÏverdict€against€the€defendant€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÏwith€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474€(Tenn.€1973).€ÏThe€defendant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€the€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.ÏBrownóó,€551€S.W.2d€329€(Tenn.€1977).€€ÌOnce€a€homicide€has€been€established,€it€is€presumed€to€be€second„degreeÏmurder,€and€the€State€bears€the€burden€of€proof€on€the€issues€of€premeditation€andÏdeliberation€sufficient€to€elevate€the€offense€to€first„degree€murder.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,Ï836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€òòBrownóó,€our€Supreme€Court€discussed€the€elementsÏof€first„degree€murder€at€length.€€The€Court€said€that€the€element€of€deliberationÏcontemplates€a€lapse€of€time€between€the€decision€to€kill€and€the€actual€killing.€€TheÏCourt€further€stated€that€"the€deliberation€and€premeditation€must€be€akin€to€theÏdeliberation€and€premeditation€manifested€where€the€murder€is€by€poison€or€lying€inÏwait„„the€cool€purpose€must€be€formed€and€the€deliberate€intention€conceived€in€theÏmind,€in€the€absence€of€passion,€to€take€the€life€of€the€person€slain."€€òòId.óó€at€539Ï(quoting€òòRader€v.€Stateóó,€73€Tenn.€610,€619„20€(1880)).€€Thus,€in€order€to€convict€aÏdefendant€for€first„degree€murder,€a€jury€must€find€that€the€defendant€killed€withÏcoolness€(deliberation)€and€after€reflective€thought€(premeditation).€€òòState€v.€Westóó,Ï844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992);€€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Brooksóó,€880€S.W.2d€390,€392„93€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€ÌThere€is€no€specific€time€required€to€form€the€requisite€deliberation.€€òòState€v.ÏGentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€3„4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Deliberation€is€present€when€theÏcircumstances€suggest€that€the€defendant€contemplated€the€manner€and€theÏconsequences€of€his€act.€€òòIdóó.€at€4.€€While€deliberation€and€premeditation€are€similar,Ïthey€are€defined€as€separate€and€distinct€elements€of€first„degree€murder.€€òòSeeóóÍT.C.A.€Ô€ ÔððÔ€!Ô€39„13„201€(b)€(deliberate€act€is€"one€performed€with€cool€purpose"€andÏpremeditated€act€is€"one€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment.");€òòseeÏalsoóó€òòState€v.€Brooksóó,€880€S.W.2d€at€392„93.€€Deliberation€and€premeditation€may€beÏinferred€from€the€circumstances€where€those€circumstances€affirmatively€establishÏthat€the€defendant€premeditated€his€assault€and€then€deliberately€performed€the€act.€ÏòòState€v.€Richard€Nelsonóó,€No.€02C01„9211„CR„€00251€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,ÏOct.€13,€1993).€€This€Court€has€held€that€òòBrownóó€requires€"proof€that€the€offense€wasÏcommitted€upon€reflection,€'without€passion€or€provocation,'€and€otherwise€free€fromÏthe€influence€of€excitement"€before€a€second„degree,€intentional€murder€can€beÏelevated€to€murder€in€the€first€degree.€€òòState€v.€David€L.€Hassellóó,€No.€02C01„9202„CR„00038,€Slip€Op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Dec.€30,€1992).ÌLooking€at€the€facts€in€the€present€case€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,Ïas€we€are€required€to€do€on€appeal,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€more€thanÏsufficient€to€support€the€jury's€finding€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€There€wasÏtestimony€that€approximately€one€week€prior€to€the€shooting,€the€appellant€advisedÏDoug€Martin€that€the€victim€needed€to€be€killed€because€of€the€appellant's€belief€thatÏthe€victim€was€a€police€informant.€€Further€there€is€evidence€that€the€appellantÏattempted€to€enlist€Martin€to€assist€him€in€the€killing.€€There€was€also€evidence€fromÏwhich€the€jury€could€reasonably€conclude€that€the€appellant€borrowed€a€shotgunÏfrom€Ricky€Johnson€for€the€purpose€of€executing€Boyd.€€Finally€the€jury€heardÍtestimony€from€Mike€Eldridge€and€Ricky€Johnson€that€the€appellant€admitted€to€eachÏof€them€separately€that€he€had€in€fact€shot€and€killed€the€victim€by€first€shooting€BoydÏin€the€back€and€then€shooting€him€in€the€face€as€the€victim€lay€dying.€€ÌThere€is€no€merit€to€this€issue.Ìò òÌà@ àVALIDITY€OF€THE€INDICTMENTó óÌThe€appellant€presents€two€threshold€issues€which€concern€the€validity€of€theÏindictment€in€this€case.€€Based€upon€a€careful€review€of€the€record€we€conclude€thatÏthe€indictment€brought€against€the€appellant€was€valid€and€the€arguments€advancedÏby€the€appellant€on€these€issues€are€without€merit.ÌThe€first€petit€jury€empaneled€to€hear€the€case€against€him€was€quashed€byÏthe€trial€judge€because€of€a€procedural€irregularity€in€the€selection€of€the€oneÏthousand€member€jury€venire.€The€grand€jury€which€indicted€the€appellant€wasÏdrawn€from€the€same€one€thousand€member€venire€as€the€quashed€petit€jury.€€€InÏorder€to€select€a€grand€jury€in€Warren€county,€the€€jury€commissioners,€not€a€clerk,€Ïare€to€meet€and€gather€names€of€eligible€citizens€from€the€thousand€member€juryÏvenire€to€serve€as€jurors€for€a€period€of€two€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€ ÔððÔ€!Ô€22„2„302Ï(1994€Repl.).€€In€this€case,€the€clerk€of€the€Jury€Commission€of€Warren€CountyÏparticipated€along€with€the€jury€commissioners€in€the€selection€of€the€one€thousandÏmember€jury€venire,€as€well€as€in€the€selection€of€two€hundred€fifty€members€of€theÍpanel€for€each€term€of€court.€€It€is€upon€these€facts€the€appellant€claims€that€theÏindictment€against€him€is€invalid.€Ì€€In€òòFlynn€v.€Stateóó,€203€Tenn.€337,€313€S.W.2d€248€(1958),€the€Supreme€CourtÏof€Tennessee€held€that€a€departure€from€a€prescribed€method€of€impaneling€a€grandÏjury,€in€the€absence€of€fraud€or€prejudice,€does€not€render€that€grand€jury€illegal€norÏits€acts€invalid.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€867€S.W.2d€330,€337€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1992).€€The€appellant€does€not€contend€that€there€was€any€fraud€committed€duringÏthe€selection€of€the€jury€venire€from€which€the€grand€jurors€who€indicted€him€wereÏselected.€€Further,€the€appellant€has€not€shown€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€theÏprocedure.€That€the€trial€judge€quashed€the€petit€jury€because€of€the€improperÏselection€procedure€in€no€way€vitiates€the€authority€of€the€grand€jury€which€indictedÏthe€appellant.€€At€most,€€the€departure€from€the€procedural€requirements€of€€juryÏselection€rendered€the€grand€jury€a€òòdeóó€òòfactoóó€grand€jury.€€In€òòFlynnóó,€the€Supreme€CourtÏheld€that€a€òòdeóó€òòfactoóó€grand€jury€is€imbued€with€the€same€authority€to€indict€as€aÏproperly€selected€grand€jury.€€òòState€v.€Flynnóó,€313€S.W.€2d€at€252.€€€Therefore,€theÏdefendant's€indictment€was€valid.€€ÌThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€presence€of€an€unauthorized€person€inÏthe€grand€jury€room€during€the€taking€of€testimony€and€the€deliberations€of€the€grandÏjury€was€so€prejudicial€to€the€judicial€process€that€this€Court€should€set€aside€theÏindictment€issued€against€him€in€this€cause.€€ÌThe€grand€jury€foreman€in€Warren€County€at€the€time€the€indictment€wasÏreturned€against€the€appellant€had€been€serving€as€the€grand€jury€foreman€for€almostÏten€years.€€A€new€grand€jury€foreman€had€been€chosen€by€the€trial€judge€to€take€overÏon€April€1,€1993.€€The€trial€judge€authorized€Gerry€Gipson,€the€new€jury€foreman,€toÏbe€present€during€a€portion€of€the€grand€jury€proceedings€so€that€he€could€becomeÏfamiliar€with€the€process€and€learn€how€the€grand€jury€operates.ÌTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€6€(h)€(1)€provides€that€the€districtÏattorney€general€shall€not€be€present,€ð ðòònor€shall€any€other€officer€or€person€beÏpresent€when€the€question€is€taken€upon€the€finding€of€an€indictmentóó.ðð€(emphasisÏadded).€€Additionally,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€8„7„501€provides€that€atÏgrand€jury€proceedings€the€district€attorney€general€or€his€designated€assistant€shallÏnot€be€present€when€the€question€is€taken€upon€the€finding€of€an€indictment.€€There€isÏno€allegation€that€Mr.€Gipson€was€present€during€the€taking€of€the€grand€jury's€vote,Ïand€the€testimony€clearly€established€that,€€in€fact,€€Mr.€Gipson€was€not€present€duringÏthe€grand€jury€vote.€€Importantly,€the€testimony€at€the€hearing€was€that€Mr.€Gipson€didÏnot€participate€in€any€deliberation€of€the€grand€jury.ÌWhile€we€do€not€condone€the€presence€of€a€grand€jury€foreman€"trainee"€orÏany€departure€from€the€rules€and€statutes€governing€grand€juries,€we€hold€that€Mr.ÏGipson's€presence€in€the€grand€jury€room€during€grand€jury€proceedings€was€not€soÏprejudicial€to€the€judicial€process€as€to€merit€a€dismissal€of€the€indictment€in€this€case.€ÍIn€òòSadler€v.€Stateóó,€124€Tenn.€50,€53,€136€S.W.€430€(1911),€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€held€that€although€it€was€error€for€a€court€officer€to€remain€in€the€grand€juryÏroom€during€portions€of€their€proceedings,€such€casual€presence€of€a€court€officer€didÏnot€have€the€effect€of€vitiating€the€indictment€where€there€was€no€showing€that€theÏofficer€attempted€to€interfere€with€or€influence€the€grand€jury€in€its€action.€€ÌThe€purpose€of€grand€jury€secrecy€is€to€insure€that€the€jurors€ÌÓÓà àmay€discharge€their€duties€without€apprehensionÌà à€of€any€hurt€from€an€accused€or€some€other€person;Ìà à€to€secure€the€utmost€freedom€of€disclosure€of€alleged€Ìà àcrimes€by€prosecutors;€to€conceal€the€fact€that€anÌ€à àindictment€has€been€found€against€an€accused€who€Ìà àis€not€yet€in€custody;€to€prevent€perjury€and€subornation€Ìà àof€perjury€to€the€extent€that,€if€testimony€given€beforeÌà à€the€grand€jury€were€known,€the€accused€or€a€confederate€Ìà àmight€attempt€to€disprove€it€by€procuring€false€testimony;€Ìà àand€to€protect€an€accused€citizen€from€public€disgraceÌ€à àin€a€case€where€there€is€not€enough€evidence€to€support€Ìà àa€criminal€charge.ÌÌ€€òòRippy€v.€Stateóó,€550€S.W.2d€636,€642€(Tenn.€1977).€ÌÓÓÌ€We€hold€that€the€attendance€of€Mr.€Gipson€in€the€grand€jury€room€during€itsÏdeliberations€did€not€prejudice€the€judicial€system€because€there€was€no€indicationÏthat€he€participated€in€any€way,€shape€or€form€in€the€proceedings,€including€theÏdeliberations,€and€he€was€never€allowed€to€remain€in€the€jury€room€while€the€voteÏwas€being€taken.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€indictment€in€this€case€was€valid.ÌÌà@ àò òPROSECUTORIAL€MISCONDUCTó óÌThe€appellant€next€contends€that€€certain€remarks€made€by€the€prosecutorsÏduring€their€closing€arguments€were€so€inflammatory€and€prejudicial€that€theyÏaffected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.€€ÌAmong€the€factors€considered€by€this€court€when€reviewing€an€allegation€ofÏprosecutorial€misconduct€are:€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor,€the€curative€measuresÏundertaken€by€the€court,€the€improper€conduct€viewed€in€context€and€in€light€of€theÏfacts€and€circumstances€of€the€case,€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€remarks€with€anyÏerrors€in€the€record,€and€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.€€òòJudge€v.ÏStateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€In€order€to€be€entitled€to€relief,€Ïthe€appellant€is€required€to€show€that€the€argument€of€the€prosecutor€was€soÏinflammatory€or€the€conduct€so€improper€that€it€affected€the€verdict€to€his€detriment.€ÏòòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(Tenn.€1965).€€ÌOf€the€four€statements€objected€to€on€appeal€by€the€appellant,€only€one€wasÏobjected€to€during€the€trial.€€It€is€well€settled€that€without€a€contemporaneousÏobjection€to€a€prosecutor's€statements,€the€error€is€waived.€€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€562ÏS.W.2d€820,€825€(Tenn.€1978);€òòState€v.€Comptonóó,€642€S.W.2d€745,€747€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1982).€The€appellant€acknowledges€this,€but€urges€this€Court€to€find€that€theÏstatements€were€plain€error.€€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€52(b)€providesÏthat€"[a]n€error€which€has€affected€the€substantial€rights€of€an€accused€may€be€noticedÍat€any€time,€even€though€not€raised€in€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€or€assigned€as€errorÏon€appeal,€in€the€discretion€of€the€appellate€court€where€necessary€to€do€substantialÏjustice."€€Because€we€have€determined€that€none€of€the€statements€individually€orÏcollectively€constitute€prosecutorial€misconduct,€we€conclude€that€the€plain€errorÏdoctrine€has€no€application€in€this€case.ÌThe€first€statement€to€which€the€appellant€objects€was€the€statement€of€theÏdistrict€attorney€that€the€appellant€shot€the€victim€at€a€range€somewhere€between€sixÏ(6)€and€twelve€(12)€inches€from€the€victim's€back.€€The€proof€showed€that€the€woundÏto€the€back€was€inflicted€by€a€shotgun€at€close€range.€€However,€there€was€noÏevidence€that€the€weapon€was€discharged€from€a€range€of€six€(6)€to€twelve€(12)Ïinches€from€the€victim's€back.€€While€we€agree€that€the€prosecutor€misstated€theÏevidence€as€to€the€distance€of€the€weapon€from€the€back€of€the€victim,€we€cannotÏagree€that€such€a€misstatement€likely€affected€the€verdict€to€the€appellant's€detriment.€ÏWhether€the€weapon€was€fired€from€six€(6)€inches€or€seven€(7)€feet€does€not€affect€theÏessential€determination€required€to€be€made€by€the€jury€to€support€their€finding€thatÏthe€appellant€was€guilty€of€murder€in€the€first€degree.€€ÌThe€appellant€next€contends€that€several€remarks€made€by€the€prosecutorÏconcerning€the€testimony€of€Doug€Martin€constituted€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€TheÏprosecutor€stated€several€times€during€his€closing€statements€that€in€a€conversationÏwith€Doug€Martin,€the€appellant€called€the€victim€a€ð ðnarc."€€The€appellant€correctlyÍpoints€out€that€the€word€used€by€Mr.€Martin€was€ð ðsnitching.ðð€€€€We€do€not€believe€thatÏthe€term€ð ðnarcðð€as€opposed€to€ð ðsnitchðð€€had€the€potential€to€unfairly€inflame€the€juryÏsuch€that€the€appellant€was€prejudiced€by€the€remark€in€this€case.Ì€Again,€while€purporting€to€quote€testimony€of€Doug€Martin,€the€district€attorneyÏgeneral€stated€that€Mr.€Martin€said,€"Your€boy€needs€killing."€€The€appellant€correctlyÏstates€that€there€was€never€testimony€that€the€appellant€referred€to€the€victim€as€aÏ"boy."€€The€appellant€regards€this€as€an€attempt€on€the€part€of€the€prosecution€toÏinflame€the€jury€by€attributing€a€racial€slur€to€the€appellant.€€The€state€contends€thatÏthe€use€of€the€term€"boy"€was€not€intended€as€a€racial€slur,€but€was€rather€a€slangÏterm€used€to€define€a€friend€or€buddy.€€It€is€exceedingly€difficult€for€this€Court€toÏassess€what€the€prosecutor€meant€by€the€use€of€the€term€"boy."€€It€is€true€that€the€termÏhas€often€been€used€as€a€repugnant€racial€slur.€€After€a€careful€review€of€the€record,Ïwe€cannot€conclude€that€the€prosecution€was€attempting€to€inflame€the€jury€byÏattributing€racist€sentiment,€language€or€intent€to€the€appellant.€€Even€if€the€use€of€theÏterm€"boy"€was€intended€as€a€racial€slur,€we€cannot€conclude€that€this€isolated€eventÏwould€have€inflamed€the€jury€to€such€a€level€as€to€affect€the€verdict€to€the€appellant'sÏdetriment.€€This€is€particularly€true€in€light€of€the€overwhelming€evidence€heard€by€theÏjury€of€the€appellant's€guilt€in€this€case.€€ÌThe€appellant€also€takes€umbrage€at€a€statement€made€by€the€attorneyÏgeneral€in€which€he€purported€to€quote€the€testimony€of€Mike€Eldridge.€€TheÍprosecutor€stated€that€Mike€Eldridge's€testimony€was€that€the€appellant€told€him,Ï"Then,€as€he€was€laying€there€gasping€for€breath,€helpless,€I€stuck€the€gun€to€hisÏhead€and€blew€his€face€off."€€As€the€appellant€correctly€points€out,€the€testimony€ofÏMike€Eldridge€on€this€point€was€that€the€appellant€"said€he€shot€him€once€in€the€backÏand€once€in€the€face."€€Further,€Mr.€Eldridge€testified€that€the€appellant€"said€at€thatÏtime,€he€shot€him€in€the€back€and,€then,€shot€him€in€the€face.€.€.€€He€said€he€blowedÏhis€face€out„„everything€but€the€bottom€part."€€Most€of€what€the€prosecutor€told€the€juryÏas€a€quote€of€Mr.€Eldridge's€testimony€was€essentially€what€Mr.€Eldridge€testified€to,Ïbut€was€clearly€not€a€direct€quote.€€One€portion€of€the€prosecutor's€remarks€whichÏfinds€no€support€in€the€record€as€being€testimony€of€Mike€Eldridge€is€that€theÏappellant€described€the€victim€as€gasping€for€breath€and€helpless.€€While€thisÏcertainly€created€a€strong€visual€image€for€the€jury,€we€find€that€this€statement€was€notÏso€prejudicial€as€to€affect€the€verdict€improperly.€€Additionally,€there€was€testimonyÏfrom€Dr.€Gretel€Harlan€that€the€appellant€was€alive€at€the€time€he€was€shot€in€the€backÏand€that€the€back€wound€would€have€killed€him€within€a€matter€of€minutes.€€It€is,Ïtherefore,€not€inconceivable€that€the€jury€might€have€concluded€on€its€own€that€theÏvictim€was€gasping€for€breath€moments€before€his€death.€€In€any€event,€as€with€theÏother€remarks€made€by€the€prosecution,€these€remarks€do€not€go€to€the€heart€of€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€charged€for€which€there€was€overwhelming€evidenceÏof€guilt.ÌFinally,€the€appellant€objects€to€the€remarks€of€the€prosecution€wherein€theÏattorney€general€purported€to€quote€the€appellant€as€saying,€€in€response€to€learningÏthat€Mike€Eldridge€had€informed€the€government€that€the€appellant€committed€theÏmurder,€"General€€Lock,€if€I€tell€you€the€truth,€you€are€going€to€put€me€in€the€electricÏchair.€€Fellows,€if€I€tell€you€the€truth,€I€am€going€to€die.€€Just€promise€me€you€won't€putÏme€in€the€electric€chair,€and€I€will€tell€you€the€truth."€€The€appellant's€argument€is€thatÏthe€actual€statement€made€by€the€appellant€was€made€to€Agent€Wix€and€theÏstatement€was:€"I€will€make€a€written€statement,€but€promise€me€you€won't€give€meÏthe€death€penalty."€€Additionally,€the€appellant€contends€that€there€is€no€indication€inÏthe€record€that€this€conversation€took€place€in€response€to€anything€said€by€MikeÏEldridge.€€Again,€while€the€appellant€is€correct€that€the€words€used€by€the€prosecutionÏwere€not€a€direct€quote,€the€essence€of€the€statement€was€true,€and€we€find€thatÏwhatever€prejudice€might€have€followed€from€such€a€statement€was€avoided€by€theÏtrial€courtððs€jury€instructions€which€were€that€the€jury€should€not€regard€remarks€madeÏby€either€the€prosecuting€attorneys€or€the€appellant's€counsel€as€evidence.ÌÌà@ àò òADMISSION€OF€APPELLANTððS€STATEMENTó óÌThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€into€evidenceÏthe€statement€he€gave€to€Agent€Wix€on€the€night€of€his€arrest.ÌPrior€to€trial€the€trial€court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€upon€theÏappellant's€motion€to€suppress€the€use€of€his€statement.€€The€appellant€argued€thatÏhis€statement€was€taken€in€violation€of€his€rights€against€self„incriminationÏguaranteed€by€the€Fifth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€and€Article€I,€section€9,€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€ÌAs€a€preliminary€matter,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court's€initial€ruling€from€theÏbench€following€the€suppression€hearing€was€incorrect.€€The€trial€judge€stated€thatÏwhether€a€statement€was€taken€in€violation€of€Miranda,€ð ð...comes,€frequently,€€down€toÏa€question€of€fact€for€the€jury.ðð€€€The€court€further€stated€that€it€would€allow€theÏstatement€into€evidence,€ÓÓÌÌà8 à...but€warn€the€jury€that€it€allegedly€was€done€in€anÏimproper€fashion€and€cannot€be€considered.€€In€otherÏwords,€I€pass€on€it,€first,€and,€then,€I€hand€it€to€the€jury€„€orÏnot.ÌÌÓÓIn€òòState€v.€Pursleyóó,€550€S.W.2d€949€(Tenn.€1977),€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€held€that€determining€the€admissibility€of€a€criminal€defendant's€confession€isÏthe€òòsoleóó€function€of€the€trial€judge,€not€the€jury.€€€Although€the€court€initially€indicatedÏthat€it€would€€allow€the€jury€to€make€a€determination€on€the€voluntariness€of€theÏdefendant's€statement€to€the€government,€€in€the€written€order€filed€by€the€court€inÏwhich€the€motion€to€suppress€€was€denied,€the€trial€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€.€.€.€that€the€defendant€was€appropriately€advised€of€hisÏrights.€€That€a€knowledgeable€and€intelligent€waiver€of€hisÍright€to€counsel€was€made.€€Based€upon€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances,€it€is€found€that€this€was€a€non„coerciveÏquestioning,€that€the€defendant€wanted€to€talk€and€that€hisÏwill€was€not€overborne.ÌÌÓÓ€Additionally,€in€its€instructions€to€the€jury,€the€trial€court€did€not€invite€the€jury€toÏdetermine€the€legal€issue€concerning€whether€the€statement€was€taken€in€violation€ofÏthe€defendant's€right€to€counsel.€€Rather,€the€court€instructed€the€jury€that€the€decisionÏto€believe€whether€the€confession€or€any€part€of€it€was€untrue€or€never€made€wasÏtheir€decision€alone.€Although€the€court€stated€that€as€a€preliminary€matter€theÏstatement€was€admissible€but€that€it€would€allow€the€jury€to€decide€the€issueÏultimately,€the€jury€was€never€actually€asked€to€pass€on€this€legal€question.€ÏAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€appellant€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€trial€courtððsÏinitial€oral€ruling.ÌThe€appellant€contends€that€although€he€was€given€and€understood€hisÏòòMirandaóó€warnings€prior€to€questioning,€sometime€during€the€interrogation,€he€askedÏfor€an€opportunity€to€confer€with€an€attorney€but€was€denied€that€right€prior€to€givingÏhis€statement.€€ÌTestifying€at€the€suppression€hearing€were€the€appellant,€Agent€Wix,€andÏAttorney€Robert€W.€Boyd,€Jr.€of€the€District€Attorney€General's€office.ÌAgent€Wix€testified€that€the€appellant€was€brought€to€the€library€at€the€DistrictÏAttorney€General's€office€after€being€arrested€on€drug€charges.€€Wix€advised€theÍappellant€of€his€constitutional€rights€and€then€began€questioning€him€in€regard€to€theÏdrug€charges.€€Later€the€questioning€turned€to€the€murder€of€Christopher€Boyd.€€AtÏfirst€the€appellant€denied€any€knowledge€of€the€murder€and€refused€to€answerÏquestions.€€However,€Agent€Wix€said€that€the€appellant€made€a€number€ofÏincriminating€admissions€regarding€the€murder€after€Mike€Eldridge€was€brought€intoÏthe€room€and€told€the€appellant€that€he€had€informed€the€police€of€the€appellantððsÏinvolvement€in€the€murder€of€Christopher€Boyd.€€Wix€testified€that€at€no€time€did€theÏappellant€ever€request€to€confer€with€an€attorney€but€did€request€to€be€allowed€toÏtelephone€his€parents.€€Wix€testified€that€appellant's€request€to€telephone€his€parentsÏwas€honored,€and€after€speaking€by€telephone€with€his€mother,€the€appellantÏcompleted€his€oral€statement.€€Robert€Boyd€transcribed€the€statement€in€long€hand,Ïread€it€to€the€appellant,€and€the€appellant€signed€it.ÌThe€appellant€testified€that€following€his€arrest€on€the€drug€charge€he€wasÏadvised€of€his€Miranda€rights€and€told€Agent€Wix€that€he€did€not€need€an€attorney.€ÏHe€said€that€when€the€questioning€later€turned€to€the€murder€that€he€was€again€readÏhis€rights€by€Agent€Wix.ÌThe€appellant€testified€that€he€told€Agent€Wix€that,€"I€did€not€shoot€anyone,€andÏthat€I€did€not€have€nothing€to€say€about€it."€€€€The€appellant€testified€that€after€MikeÏEldridge€was€brought€in€to€the€room€where€the€appellant€was€being€questioned€andÍadvised€the€appellant€that€he€had€"told€them€everything,"€the€appellant€said€to€AgentÏWix€and€Mr.€Boyd,€€"I€think€I€need€an€attorney...€€I€need€to€call€an€attorney."€€ÌRobert€Boyd€testified€that€he€was€present€during€the€questioning€of€theÏappellant,€and,€on€cross„examination,€said:ÌÓÓà8 à€€€€I€know€we€discussed€whether€or€not€he€wanted€aÏlawyer.€€He€may€have€said,€"Maybe,€I€need€to€talk€to€aÏlawyer,€or€maybe€I€don't."€€But€I€don't„„I€know€he€neverÏasked€to€talk€to€a€lawyer.€€I€know€he€was€afforded€theÏopportunity€on€two€or€three€occasions€to€ask€for€one€if€heÏwanted€to€do€that.ÌÓÓÌThe€Fifth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€ConstitutionÏrequire€that€once€a€person€in€custody€requests€counsel,€all€interrogation€must€ceaseÏuntil€an€attorney€is€present.€€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€474,€86€S.€Ct.€1602,Ï1627,€16€L.€Ed.€2d€694€(1966).€€Article€I,€section€9,€of€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏprovides€similar,€albeit€broader,€protection€for€the€accused.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Crumpóó,€834ÏS.W.2d€265,€268€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,€113€S.Ct.€298,€121€L.€Ed.Ï2d€221(1992)€(Art.€I,€Ô€ ÔððÔ€!Ô€9,€is€broader€and€more€protective€of€individual€rights€than€is€theÏFifth€Amendment€to€the€U.S.€Constitution).€€In€this€case,€the€appellant€contends€thatÏhe€did€invoke€his€right€to€counsel€when€he€stated€that€perhaps€he€needed€to€speakÏwith€a€lawyer.€€Although€one€(1)€government€witness€contended€that€at€no€time€didÏthe€appellant€invoke€his€right€to€counsel,€Robert€Boyd€did€admit€that€the€appellantÏmay€have€made€a€statement€to€the€effect€that€perhaps€he€needed€to€speak€with€aÍlawyer.€€Under€the€standard€announced€in€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,Ï548€(Tenn.€1994),€where€during€custodial€interrogation€an€accused€makes€anÏequivocal€request€for€counsel,€any€further€questioning€of€the€accused€must€be€limitedÏto€those€questions€which€will€serve€to€clarify€the€accused's€request€for€counsel.€€òòSeeóóÏòòalsoóó€€òòState€v.€Furloughóó,€797€S.W.2d€631,€639€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€Ì€Whether€the€appellant€did€or€did€not€make€an€equivocal€or€unequivocalÏrequest€for€an€attorney€is€a€question€of€fact.€€On€the€crucial€issue€of€whether€theÏappellant€invoked€his€right€to€counsel€sometime€during€the€governmentððs€questioningÏof€him,€the€trial€court€made€no€factual€findings.€€Because€the€facts€are€in€dispute,€weÏcannot€make€a€determination€of€whether€the€appellantððs€right€to€counsel€duringÏquestioning€was€violated.€€€Given€the€fact€that€the€statement€contained€the€appellantððsÏadmission€that€he€shot€and€killed€the€victim,€we€cannot€say€that€if€the€statement€wasÏtaken€in€violation€of€his€right€to€counsel,€€the€admission€of€the€statement€wasÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòChapman€v.€Californiaóó,€386€U.S.€18,€87€S.€Ct.Ï824,€17€L.€Ed.€2d€705€(1967);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€640€S.W.2d€33€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1982);€T.R.A.P.€36€(b).€€Accordingly,€we€remand€this€case€back€to€the€trial€courtÏfor€a€finding€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€appellant€made€a€request,€equivocal€or€not,€Ïfor€counsel€during€questioning€prior€to€confessing€to€the€murder.ÌÌà@ àò òð ðSTATE€OF€MINDðð€HEARSAYó óÌÓ Ð ÓLastly,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€admitted€certainÏstatements€allegedly€made€by€the€decedent€to€two€of€the€State's€witnesses.€€TheÏappellant€argues€that€such€testimony€called€for€inadmissible€hearsay,€was€irrelevant,Ïand€violated€his€state€and€federal€rights€to€confront€and€cross„examine€witnesses.€ÏThe€State€contends€that€the€statements€were€admissible€pursuant€to€theÏlongstanding€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule,€commonly€referred€to€as€the€"state€ofÏmind"€exception.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803.3.ÌOne€of€the€State's€witnesses,€Steve€Pleasant,€testified€that€on€the€day€of€theÏmurder€the€decedent€told€him€that€he€and€the€appellant€were€going€to€a€barn€to€stealÏmarijuana.€€The€other€State€witness,€Doug€Martin,€was€allowed€to€testify€that€theÏdecedent€told€him€that€he,€the€decedent,€and€the€appellant€had€plans€to€stealÏmarijuana.€€Martin€also€testified€that€the€decedent€told€him€that€the€plan€was€theÏappellant's€idea.€€ÌWhen€analyzed,€the€testimony€of€Pleasant€and€Martin€attribute€to€the€victimÏthree€out€of€court€assertions€of€fact:€€1)€that€Christopher€Boyd,€the€victim,€intended€toÏsteal€marijuana;€2)€that€the€victim€intended€to€steal€marijuana€with€the€appellant;€andÏ3)€that€the€plan€to€steal€marijuana€was€the€appellantððs.€€Looking€at€each€assertionÏindividually,€we€conclude€that€all€three€are€hearsay€and€none€of€the€statements€wereÏadmissible.€€ÌFirst,€while€clearly€evidencing€the€victimððs€state€of€mind€prior€to€his€death,€theÏassertion€that€the€victim€intended€to€steal€marijuana€was€inadmissible€because€it€wasÏirrelevant.€€We€have€thoroughly€reviewed€the€record€in€this€case,€and€considered€allÏtheories€presented€by€both€the€appellant€and€the€State.€€The€identity€of€the€victim€andÏhis€whereabouts€prior€to€his€death€were€clearly€not€an€issue€at€trial.€€The€appellantÏraised€no€defense,€such€as€accident,€suicide€of€the€victim,€€or€self„defense,€whichÏwould€make€the€victimððs€state€of€mind€relevant€to€the€issue€of€whether€the€appellantÏmurdered€the€victim.€€The€appellantððs€sole€defense€at€trial€was€that€he€did€not€killÏChristopher€Boyd.€€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€this€statement€was€irrelevant€and€it€wasÏerror€to€allow€its€introduction.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€ÌSecond,€although€the€State€argues€that€the€assertion€that€the€victim€wasÏplanning€to€steal€marijuana€with€the€appellant€€was€offered€to€show€the€victimððs€stateÏof€mind€prior€to€his€death,€it€is€apparent€to€the€Court€that€the€true€purpose€of€elicitingÏthis€testimony€from€Martin€and€Pleasant€was€to€give€evidence€of€the€appellantððsÏconduct€in€luring€the€victim€to€a€remote€area€of€the€county€under€the€guise€of€stealingÏmarijuana€with€the€real€purpose€of€the€trip€being€the€execution€of€the€victim.€ÌThe€€Advisory€Commission€Comment€to€Rule€803.3€states€that€the€state€ofÏmind€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€ð ðcontemplates€that€only€the€declarantððs€conduct,Ïnot€some€third€partyððs€conduct,€is€provable€by€this€hearsay€exception.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóóÏòòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2d€161,€171€(Tenn.€1994).€€€We€hold€that€the€statementsÍindicating€the€victimððs€plan€to€steal€marijuana€with€the€appellant€were€inadmissibleÏhearsay€because€they€demonstrate€not€only€the€victimððs€state€of€mind,€which€wasÏimmaterial,€€but€the€appellantððs€conduct€as€well.€ÌOther€jurisdictions€faced€with€similar€cases€have€concluded€as€we€do€today.€ÏIn€òòClark€v.€United€Statesóó,€412€A.2d€21€(D.€C.€App.€1980),€the€District€of€ColumbiaÏCourt€of€Appeals€held€inadmissible€the€out„of„court€statements€of€a€murder€victimÏwhich€evidenced€her€plan€to€meet€with€the€accused€at€the€location€where€herÏmurdered€body€was€later€found.€€That€court€was€persuaded,€as€are€we,€by€JusticeÏTraynor's€dissenting€opinion€in€òòPeople€v.€Alcaldeóó,€148€P.2d€627,€633€(Cal.€1944),€€inÏwhich€he€wrote€that€such€evidence,€ÌÓÓà8 à...could€not€be€admitted€without€the€risk€that€the€jury€wouldÏconclude€that€it€tended€to€prove€the€acts€of€the€defendantÏas€well€as€of€the€declarant,€and€it€is€clear€that€theÏprosecution€used€the€declaration€to€that€end.€€There€is€noÏdispute€as€to€the€identity€of€the€deceased€or€as€to€whereÏshe€was€at€the€time€of€her€death.€€Since€the€evidence€isÏoverwhelming€as€to€who€the€deceased€was€and€whereÏshe€was€when€she€met€her€death,€no€legitimate€purposeÏcould€be€served€by€admitting€her€declarations€of€what€sheÏintended€to€do....€The€only€purpose€that€could€be€servedÏby€admitting€such€declarations€would€be€to€induce€theÏbelief€that€the€defendant€went€out€with€the€deceased,€tookÏher€to€the€scene€of€the€crime€and€there€murdered€her.€€HerÏdeclarations€cannot€be€admitted€for€that€purpose€withoutÏsetting€aside€the€rule€against€hearsay.€ÌÌÓÓWe€agree€with€the€court€in€òòClarkóó€that€"to€admit€such€evidence€where€theÏvictim's€intentions€are€irrelevant€violates€one€of€the€fundamental€concepts€of€theÍstate„of„mind€exception:€that€the€declarant's€own€state€of€mind€be€relevant€to€aÏmaterial€issue€in€the€case."€€òòClarkóó€at€30;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòIn€Re€Cheryl€H.óó,€200€Cal.€Rptr.€789,Ï802€(Cal.€App.2d€Dist.1984).€€€€ÌFinally,€the€State€also€insists€that€the€victim's€statement€that€it€was€theÏappellant's€plan€to€steal€the€marijuana€likewise€was€properly€admitted€to€show€theÏvictim's€state€of€mind€relative€to€his€relationship€with€the€appellant.€€We€disagree.€ÏThat€the€idea€to€steal€the€marijuana€was€the€appellant's,€does€not€shed€any€light€onÏthe€victim's€state€of€mind€prior€to€his€death.€€It€is€clear€to€this€Court€that€the€State's€realÏpurpose€in€seeking€to€introduce€the€statement€was€to€bolster€the€State's€theory€thatÏthe€appellant€lured€the€victim€to€a€remote€area€of€the€county€in€order€to€kill€him.€€InÏshort,€the€State€used€this€testimony€to€show€that€the€killing€was€premeditated.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€statement€was€inadmissible€hearsay€and€that€it€was€error€for€theÏtrial€court€to€allow€the€State€to€elicit€this€statement€from€Doug€Martin.€€ÌIn€this€case,€because€the€victim's€state€of€mind€was€irrelevant€to€the€issuesÏpresented€at€trial,€and€because€a€portion€of€the€statements€attributable€to€the€victimÏconcerned€the€future€conduct€of€a€third€party,€it€was€error€to€allow€the€jury€to€hear€theÏvictim's€purported€statements€evidencing€a€plan€which€he€and€the€appellant€had€toÏsteal€marijuana€together.€€However,€if€the€trial€court€on€remand€determines€that€theÏappellant's€confession€was€properly€admitted€at€the€trial,€then€we€hold€that€the€trialÏcourt's€erroneous€admission€of€the€hearsay€testimony€regarding€the€decedent'sÍstatements€to€Pleasant€and€Martin€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€Ïbecause,€in€our€view,€the€evidence€of€the€appellant's€guilt€would€simply€beÏoverwhelming.€€Tenn.€Rule€App.€P.€36(b).€€Likewise,€if€the€appellant's€statement€wasÏtaken€in€violation€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€and€the€proof€at€the€new€trial€is€substantiallyÏthe€same,€such€hearsay€must€be€excluded.€€ÌÌÌà@ àò òCONCLUSIONó óÌThe€record€before€this€court€is€inadequate€for€us€to€determine€whether€theÏappellantððs€statement€was€introduced€in€violation€of€his€constitutional€rights€to€anÏattorney.€€Therefore,€we€vacate€the€judgment€of€conviction€and€remand€this€case€toÏthe€trial€court€for€a€determination€of€whether€the€appellant€made€a€request€for€counselÏduring€the€custodial€interrogation.€€If€the€trial€court€finds€that€the€appellant€did€makeÏeven€an€equivocal€request€for€an€attorney,€then€the€trial€court€shall€order€a€new€trialÏbased€upon€the€erroneous€admission€of€the€statement€at€the€first€trial.€€If,€€however,€Ïthe€trial€court€finds€that€no€request€for€an€attorney€was€made,€the€judgment€ofÏconviction€shall€be€reinstated€by€the€trial€court.€€Ì€à àAccordingly,€this€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€furtherÏproceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.à àÌà àà àà àà àà àòòÌÓÓà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÓ  ÓÌCONCUR€BY:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌ