ÿWPC‹7 …# VUNa %¯ 0ñµU:¦ w@à 4 4 0 5C 0Dx 0J¼ 0T 0^Z 0h¸ 0r  0|’ 0† 0œ 1u,U ,¡ 0dÍ B1U,NU >z D3¸U*ëB) 0@>DC~ AMÁÑH߃'4ªnÞLh!5x#“­%@(O*?V,v~•.vÓ0 AOæ5Æ56 0Dû6 D/?7 Bn7˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÉÞÍ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€XíèXXXÔÑ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ØDÙÚDÛDÜDÝÞDßDàáÓ€ypÑ !"#$%&'()*+,3|xì(å(3u·$¤¤Ý ƒÞÍ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€XÍßXXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$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 d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò,,,,7Border 1dd€-.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÔ€+ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òJulyÏ30,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó >Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÔ€+ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àHP€testing€was€one€of€five€blood€tests€performed€on€the€blueÏjeans.€€Type€2„1€is€the€most€common€result€in€HP€testing,€as€it€is€shared€by€49%€ofÏthe€population.€€Ì yÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÔ€+ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àSanders€acknowledged€that€her€relationship€with€the€appellantÏhad€been€somewhat€tumultuous€and€that,€at€one€point,€they€continued€to€see€oneÏanother€despite€the€existence€of€a€mutual€restraining€order.à àà àÌ *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÔ€+ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àPatterson€did€not€recall€telling€police€officers€that€the€appellantÏasked€him€to€drive€the€appellant€by€Sandersðð€and€Robertsðð€apartment.Ì dÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÔ€+ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€appellant€also€told€Bowen€that€he€had€awoke€the€previousÏevening€to€find€Savonna€Sanders€holding€a€gun€to€his€head.€€Sanders€said€sheÏð ðought€to€kill€him,ðð€and€she€fired€one€shot€that€missed.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÔ€+ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÓÓ€€à àà àThe€trial€judge€instructed€the€jury€that€Sandersðð€statementsÏcould€be€considered€for€impeachment€purposes€only.€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÔ€+ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€Ó€€ÌÓÓà àà àTaylor€testified€in€the€Stateððs€rebuttal€case.€€He€described€theÏappellant€as€quiet€and€subdued€but€not€crying.Ì +Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÔ€+ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àEffective€July€1,€1995,€first€degree€murder€was€amended€toÏdelete€the€deliberation€requirement.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1995€supp.).Ì ‰Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÔ€+ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àMoreover,€we€note€that€the€first€sentence€in€the€requestedÏinstruction€would€appear€to€be€an€improper€comment€on€the€evidence€by€the€court.€ÏTenn.€Const.€Art.€VI,€ðð9;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Suttlesóó,€767€S.W.2d€403,€405€(Tenn.€1989).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÔ€+ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€statute€was€amended€effective€July€1,€1994.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201(b)(1995€supp.).Ì ýÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÔ€+ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àWe€note€that€the€transcript€of€the€voir€dire€proceedings€is€notÏincluded€in€the€record€on€appeal.Ì 5Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÔ€+ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àMoreover,€we€note€that€defense€counselððs€summation€likewiseÏreferred€to€the€fact€that€the€appellant€was€wearing€the€same€clothes€when€he€wasÏarrested.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(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 Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€((X„d&ÓÑ#€((Xd#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÔ€+ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ ° ÑÓÓ›Ñ7€¶nXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÙ€€ÙœßL€/0.;+'h|` à. `€€Lß›à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àóóFEBRUARY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à à#03C01„9502„CR„00026ÌÌà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà à*à àSULLIVANÏCOUNTYÌÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€R.€Jerry€BeckÌÌRICKY€LYNN€GOINS,à àà à*à à(First€DegreeÏMurder;€Attempted€First€DegreeÏà àà àà àà àà àà àMurder)ÌÌà àà àAPPELLANT.à à*ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€AppelleeóóÌÌStephen€M.€Wallaceà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€&ÏReporterÌP.O.€Box€839à àà àà àà à450€James€RobertsonÏParkwayÌBlountville,€TN€37617à àà àà àNashville,€TNÏ37243„0493ÌÌRichard€A.€Tateà àà àà àà àHunt€S.€Brownà àà àà àÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAsst.€AttorneyÏGeneralÌP.O.€Box€839à àà àà àà à450€James€RobertsonÏParkwayÌBlountville,€TN€37617à àà àà àNashville,€TNÏ37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCarl€K.€KirkpatrickÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPhyllis€MillerÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€526Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€37617ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDavid€Glenn€OverbayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€Generalà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€526Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€37617à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÓ  ÓWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌà àà àThe€appellant,€Ricky€Lynn€Goins,€was€convicted€of€the€first€degreeÏmurder€of€Kenneth€Ray€Roberts€and€the€attempted€first€degree€murder€of€SavonnaÏSanders.€€œHe€was›€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment€for€the€former€conviction€and€toÏtwenty€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€for€the€latter€conviction.€€The€sentencesÏare€to€be€served€concurrently.ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€the€appellant€argues€that:€(a)€the€evidence€was€insufficient€toÏsupport€the€convictions;€(b)€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€evidence;€(c)€the€trial€courtÍerred€in€denying€a€proposed€instruction€to€the€jury€on€the€elements€of€premeditation,Ïdeliberation,€and€passion;€(d)€the€trial€court€erred€in€instructing€the€jury€as€to€the€rangeÏof€possible€penalties€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„201(b);Ïand€(e)€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€prosecution€to€engage€in€misconduct€duringÏsummation.€€The€State€of€Tennessee€argues€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏimposing€concurrent€sentences.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€verdictÏand€that€there€is€no€reversible€error€in€the€record.€€The€judgments€are€affirmed.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€early€morning€hours€of€August€18,€1993,€the€appellant,€armed€withÏa€.22€caliber€semi„automatic€rifle,€entered€the€United€Oil€convenience€store€inÏKingsport,€Tennessee.€€The€appellant€shot€Savonna€Sanders,€his€former€wife,€threeÏtimes;€she€survived.€€He€also€shot€Kenneth€Ray€Roberts€three€times;€Roberts€wasÏkilled.€€When€officers€from€the€Kingsport€Police€Department€arrived€at€the€scene€atÏapproximately€4:42€a.m.,€they€found€Roberts€lying€on€the€floor€of€the€store€in€a€pool€ofÏblood.€€They€found€Sanders€in€a€rear€office.€€She€was€covered€with€blood€andÏdisoriented.€€She€said€she€had€fallen€down€and€she€denied€having€been€shot.€€SheÏmentioned€her€ð ðex„husband.ððÌÌà àà àSeveral€officers€described€the€crime€scene.€€Display€stands€had€beenÏknocked€over.€€A€trail€of€blood€in€the€dining€area€and€behind€the€sales€counter€led€toÍthe€office€in€which€Sanders€had€been€found.€€Shoe€prints€were€evident€in€the€blood.€ÏThe€stock€of€a€.22€caliber€rifle€was€found€in€the€office;€the€barrel€was€found€under€theÏsales€counter.€€Two€unfired€.22€caliber€shell€casings€were€found€outside€the€entranceÏto€the€store.€€Several€fired€and€unfired€.22€caliber€shell€casings€were€found€inside€theÏstore€near€the€sales€counter,€the€dining€area,€and€the€office.€€Bullet€fragments€wereÏrecovered€from€the€floor€and€from€the€wall€near€Roberts.€€A€bullet€fragment€was€alsoÏfound€in€a€bench.ÌÌà àà àDetective€J.W.€Sampson€testified€that€much€of€the€evidence€recoveredÏfrom€the€crime€scene€was€sent€to€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€for€furtherÏanalysis.€€After€the€victims€were€identified,€Sampson€obtained€a€search€warrant€for€theÏappellantððs€apartment.€€He€executed€the€warrant€at€approximately€4:00€p.m.€€TheÏappellant€was€not€present,€nor€was€any€evidence€found€in€his€apartment€that€tied€himÏto€the€crime€scene.€€Sampson€testified€that€the€appellant€surrendered€to€authoritiesÏlater€in€the€day€and€that€he€was€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€The€appellantððs€clothesÏand€shoes€were€sent€to€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation.€€At€one€point,€theÏappellant€told€Sampson:€ð ðI€donððt€know€why€I€done€that,€it€was€stupid.€€Girls€sure€canÏmess€you€up,€canððt€they?ððÌÌà àà àDeane€Johnson,€a€serologist€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,Ïanalyzed€the€blood€found€at€the€crime€scene€and€on€the€appellantððs€clothes.€€TestsÏrevealed€HP€type€2„1€blood€on€the€appellantððs€blue€jeans.€€This€blood€type€matchedÍSavonna€Sanders€and€Kenneth€Roberts.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€Human€blood€was€also€found€on€theÏappellantððs€T„shirt€and€shoes;€however,€the€amount€of€blood€was€too€small€for€testing.€ÏLinda€Littlejohn,€a€forensic€scientist€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,Ïanalyzed€the€shoe€prints€found€in€the€blood€behind€the€sales€counter.€€Of€elevenÏpartial€shoe€prints,€four€were€consistent€with€Savonna€Sandersðð€left€shoe€in€terms€ofÏsize,€shape,€and€tread€design.€€One€print€was€consistent€with€the€appellantððs€right€shoeÏin€terms€of€size,€shape,€and€tread€design.€€Finally,€one€print€matched€the€individualÏcharacteristics€of€the€appellantððs€left€shoe€and€the€match€excluded€all€other€shoes.ÌÌà àà àTommy€Heflin,€a€special€agent€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation,€testified€that€the€weapon€found€at€the€scene€was€a€.22€caliber€semi„automatic€rifle.€€Seven€unfired€Remington€.22€caliber€long€rifle€cartridges€and€six€spentÏRemington€.22€caliber€long€rifle€cartridges€were€found€at€the€scene.€€Based€on€firingÏpin€impressions,€Heflin€concluded€that€all€six€spent€cartridges€had€been€fired€from€theÏ.22€caliber€rifle€found€at€the€scene.€€Based€on€other€tests,€Heflin€concluded€that€one€ofÏthe€bullets€recovered€from€Kenneth€Roberts€had€definitely€been€fired€from€the€weaponÏfound€at€the€scene.€€The€other€two€bullets€recovered€from€Roberts€and€the€one€bulletÏrecovered€from€Savonna€Sanders€had€the€same€class€characteristics€as€the€remainingÏbullets€found€at€the€scene.€€Similarly,€bullet€fragments€recovered€from€the€wall,€floor,Íand€bench€had€the€same€class€characteristics€as€the€other€.22€caliber€bullets€found€atÏthe€scene.ÌÌà àà àSavonna€Sanders€testified€that€she€met€the€appellant€in€June€of€1990,Ïand€that€she€married€œhim€two›€weeks€later.€€Sanders€was€twenty„three€or€twenty„fourÏyears€of€age€at€the€time€and€the€appellant€was€twenty„one.€€It€was€Sandersðð€secondÏmarriage€and€the€appellantððs€first.€€In€February€or€March€of€1992,€the€couple€divorced.ÏIn€April€of€1992,€Ms.€Sanders€married€Steve€Sanders€yet€continued€to€have€aÏrelationship€with€the€appellant,€who€wanted€to€reconcile.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€In€November€of€1992,€Ms.ÏSanders€stopped€seeing€the€appellant€and€she€also€filed€for€divorce€from€SteveÏSanders.€€In€December€of€1992,€she€began€to€date€Kenneth€Ray€Roberts.€€TheÏappellant€continued€to€call€her€and€to€drive€by€her€apartment.€€He€frequently€askedÏSanders€to€remarry€him.€€She€told€the€appellant€she€would€think€about€it,€but€she€neverÏaccepted€his€proposals.ÌÌà àà àIn€August€of€1993,€a€few€days€before€the€shooting€occurred,€SavonnaÏSanders€started€dating€the€appellant€again.€€She€declined€to€remarry€him,€but€sheÏmoved€into€his€apartment.€€They€rented€furniture€together,€and€Ms.€Sanders€used€theÏname€ð ðSavonna€Goins.ðð€€After€less€than€a€week,€she€decided€the€relationship€wouldÍnot€work€so€she€left€the€appellant€and€moved€back€in€with€Roberts.€€On€August€17,Ï1993,€the€day€before€the€shooting,€she€and€Roberts€removed€the€rented€furniture€fromÏthe€appellantððs€apartment.€€Sanders€testified€that€she€knew€the€appellant€would€beÏð ðreally€madðð€when€he€learned€that€she€had€left€him€for€Roberts.ÌÌà àà àOn€the€morning€of€the€shooting,€August€18,€1993,€Savonna€Sanders€andÏRoberts€drove€to€the€United€Oil€€convenience€store,€where€Sanders€was€employed.€ÏThey€arrived€shortly€after€4:30€a.m.,€and€Sanders€turned€off€the€alarm.€€As€she€walkedÏback€toward€the€door,€she€saw€the€appellant€in€the€entranceway.€€Not€realizing€that€theÏappellant€had€a€weapon,€Sanders€went€behind€the€sales€counter.€€She€heard€a€ð ðclick„clickðð€and€was€shot€in€her€right€side€by€the€appellant.€€The€appellant€then€shot€Roberts.€ÏSanders€pushed€the€alarm€button€and€then€ran€into€a€rear€office.€€She€tried€to€lock€theÏdoor€but€the€appellant€had€followed€her.€€She€was€unable€to€recall€what€happenedÏnext.€€€à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àSanders€was€taken€to€the€hospital€and€treated€for€gunshots€wounds,Ïmultiple€bruises,€and€lacerations€to€her€face€and€head.€€€€She€had€superficial€gunshotÏwounds€to€her€chest€and€forearm€and€a€gunshot€wound€to€her€abdomen.€€Surgery€wasÏperformed€to€remove€the€bullet€from€her€abdomen.€€After€being€discharged€from€theÏhospital,€Sanders€experienced€headaches€and€unsteadiness.€€She€was€readmitted€toÏthe€hospital€and€treated€for€a€subacute€right€subdural€hematoma€and€a€frontal€skullÏfracture.€€Ìà àà àDr.€William€McCormick€performed€an€autopsy€on€Kenneth€Roberts.€€HeÏtestified€that€Roberts€had€been€shot€once€in€the€abdomen,€once€in€the€head,€and€onceÏin€the€upper€jaw.€€McCormick€described€the€paths€of€the€bullets€and€the€damageÏinflicted.€€He€testified€that€the€gunshots€to€the€abdomen€and€to€the€head€were€ð ðlethalððÏwounds.ÌÌà àà àRuth€Mullenix€testified€that€she€saw€the€appellant€and€Savonna€SandersÏa€few€days€before€the€shooting.€€She€was€aware€the€couple€had€reunited.€€On€the€dayÏbefore€the€shooting,€she€talked€to€the€appellant€around€4:00€p.m.€€She€learned€thatÏSanders€had€left€the€appellant.€€The€appellant€said,€ð ðShe€really€broke€my€heart€thisÏtime.ðð€€He€also€said€that€he€was€ð ðnot€going€to€have€anything€else€to€do€with€her.ðð€ÏMullenix€described€the€appellant€as€ð ðreal€upsetðð€and€ð ðcrying.ðð€€Similarly,€RubyÏMcGrady€testified€that€she€saw€Savonna€Sanders€at€Robertsðð€apartment€on€the€dayÏbefore€the€shooting.€€At€approximately€3:30€or€3:45€p.m.,€the€appellant€came€by€lookingÏfor€Sanders€and€Roberts.€€Sanders€hid€in€McGradyððs€apartment€until€the€appellant€left.€ÏMcGrady€testified€that€she€saw€the€appellant€€drive€by€the€apartment€several€times€thatÏevening.ÌÌà àà àScott€Lee€Patterson€testified€that€he€and€the€appellant€shared€a€rideÏhome€from€work€on€the€day€before€the€shooting.€€Patterson€knew€the€appellant€andÏSavonna€Sanders€had€reunited€but€he€was€unaware€whether€they€had€plans€toÏremarry.€€The€appellant€left€Pattersonððs€home€around€4:00€p.m.,€but€he€returned€thirtyÍto€forty„five€minutes€later.€€The€appellant€told€Patterson€that€Sanders€had€moved€outÏand€had€taken€his€furniture€and€$250.€€The€appellant€told€Patterson€that€he€had€aÏfriend€who€wanted€to€buy€Pattersonððs€.22€caliber€pistol.€€Patterson€did€not€want€to€sellÏthe€pistol.€€He€told€the€appellant€that€the€ð ðbest€thingðð€would€be€to€leave€SavonnaÏSanders€alone.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€The€appellant€left.€€Patterson€saw€the€appellant€later€that€evening.€ÏThe€appellant€did€not€mention€Sanders.€€The€following€morning,€the€appellant€did€notÏarrive€at€the€usual€time€to€share€a€ride€to€work€with€Patterson.ÌÌà àà àJoe€Crabtree€testified€that€the€appellant€stopped€by€his€home€œat€10:00›Ïp.m.€on€the€night€before€the€shooting.€€The€appellant€asked€Crabtree€to€take€him€toÏWal„Mart€to€buy€.22€caliber€rifle€shells€because€he€planned€to€go€ð ðtarget€shootingðð€theÏnext€morning.€€Crabtree€agreed€to€take€the€appellant€to€Wal„Mart€where€the€appellantÏbought€a€small€box€of€shells.€€Crabtree€told€the€appellant€that€he€needed€more€shells€ifÏhe€wanted€to€go€target€shooting,€but€the€appellant€said€someone€else€was€bringingÏmore€shells.€€When€they€returned€from€Wal„Mart,€the€appellant€showed€Crabtree€a€.22Ïcaliber€semi„automatic€rifle.€€He€agreed€to€sell€the€rifle€to€Crabtree€for€$35.00€after€heÏused€it€for€target€shooting€the€next€morning.€€Crabtree€identified€the€rifle€found€in€theÏUnited€Oil€convenience€store€as€the€one€the€appellant€had€shown€him.€€ÌÌà àà àBrenda€Sue€Bowen€was€present€when€the€appellant€visited€CrabtreeððsÏhouse€on€the€night€before€the€shooting.€€The€following€morning,€around€8:00€a.m.,ÏBowen€again€saw€the€appellant€at€Crabtreeððs€house.€€The€appellant€told€her€he€hadÏjust€gone€to€the€United€Oil€convenience€store,€shot€his€ex„wife,€and€beat€her€in€herÏhead€with€a€rifle.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€The€appellant€also€said€he€shot€Kenneth€Roberts€several€times,Ïrolled€him€over,€and€shot€him€once€more.€€The€appellant€told€Bowen€that€he€ð ðdid€oneÏthing€wrong,ðð€which€was€to€leave€the€rifle€at€the€scene.€€€ÌÌà àà àAfter€the€State€rested€its€case€in€chief,€the€appellant€recalled€DetectiveÏSampson€to€testify.€€Sampson€said€that€he€took€a€statement€from€Savonna€SandersÏtwo€days€after€the€shooting.€€Sanders€was€still€in€the€hospital€but€appeared€coherent.€ÏShe€told€Sampson€that€she€moved€in€with€the€appellant€on€August€12,€1993,€andÏmoved€out€on€August€17,€1993.€€She€said€that€the€appellant€told€her€several€times€thatÏhe€would€kill€her€and€Roberts€if€she€moved€back€in€with€Roberts.€€She€also€toldÏSampson€about€the€events€leading€up€to€the€shooting.€€The€appellant€arrived€at€theÏstore€and€then€returned€to€his€truck€to€retrieve€the€rifle.€€He€shot€Sanders€and€thenÏstood€over€Roberts,€shooting€him€ð ðover€and€over.ðð× ƒ5 ××  ×ÌÌà àà àDr.€Thomas€Schacht,€a€licensed€clinical€psychologist,€testified€that€heÏinterviewed€the€appellant€on€February€15,€1994,€and€administered€several€intelligenceÏtests.€€On€a€Wechsler€Adult€Intelligence€Scale€(WAIS),€the€appellant€had€a€verbalÏscore€of€67,€which€was€in€the€mild€mental€retardation€range,€a€performance€score€ofÏ76,€which€was€in€the€borderline€mental€retardation€range,€and€a€full€scale€score€of€71,Ïwhich€was€also€in€the€borderline€mental€retardation€range.€€Although€the€IQ€scoresÏalone€were€insufficient€to€base€a€diagnosis€of€mental€retardation,€Schacht€describedÏthe€appellantððs€poor€ability€to€make€judgments€and€to€evaluate€situations.€€ForÏinstance,€the€appellant€was€gullible€and€prone€to€exploitation€and€manipulation.€€HeÏhad€difficulty€controlling€strong€emotions€and€evaluating€dangerous€situations.€ÏSchacht€conceded€that€the€impairments€did€not€prevent€the€appellant€from€being€ableÏto€premeditate€or€deliberate.ÌÌà àà àDavid€Waye€testified€that€he€knew€the€appellant€had€reunited€with€theÏSavonna€Sanders.€€He€saw€the€couple€four€days€before€the€shooting;€both€seemedÏhappy.€The€appellant€asked€Waye€to€be€the€best€man€at€the€coupleððs€marriage.€€ÌÌà àà àVirginia€Overbay€testified€that€she€saw€the€appellant€at€her€home€on€theÏday€of€the€shooting€at€approximately€5:00€a.m.€€The€appellant€was€ð ðpacing€andÏcouldnððt€stand€still.ðð€€He€told€Overbay€he€had€just€shot€Savonna€Sanders€and€ð ðherÏboyfriend.ðð€€He€told€her€that€he€and€Sanders€had€tried€to€work€things€out€but€that€heÍhad€caught€Sanders€and€Roberts€ð ðmaking€love.ðð€€Virginia€Sue€Goins,€the€appellantððsÏœsister„in„law,›€talked€to€the€appellant€between€10:00€and€11:00€a.m.€on€the€day€of€theÏshooting.€€The€appellant€said€he€ð ðmessed€up.ðð€€He€was€crying€and€ð ðtorn€to€pieces.ðð€ÏVirginia€Goins€drove€the€appellant€to€his€familyððs€home€in€Surgoinsville.€€Jeanna€MarieÏKiersay,€the€appellantððs€sister,€was€present.€€She€testified€that€the€appellant€was€cryingÏand€upset.€€She€took€the€appellant€to€meet€with€Paul€Taylor,€the€Chief€of€Police€inÏSurgoinsville.€€According€to€Kiersay,€Taylor€took€the€appellant€to€the€Kingsport€PoliceÏDepartment.× ƒ6 ××  ×ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€did€not€support€a€finding€thatÏthe€killing€of€Roberts€and€the€attempted€killing€of€Sanders€were€premeditated€orÏdeliberate.€€He€argues€that€the€offenses€occurred€while€he€was€in€a€state€of€passionÏover€his€latest€break€up€with€Sanders.€€The€State€maintains€that€the€evidence€wasÏsufficient€to€support€the€convictions.ÌÌà àà àWhen€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€standard€forÏreview€by€an€appellate€court€is€whether,€after€considering€the€evidence€in€a€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÍelements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307,€318„19€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.€App.ÏP.€13(e).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence,€and€to€all€reasonable€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.ÏCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€836€(Tenn.€1978).€€In€determining€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence,€this€court€should€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€òòidóó.,€and€this€court€should€notÏsubstitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.Ï298,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956).ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€of€these€offenses,€first€degree€murder€was€defined€as€theÏð ðintentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a).× ƒ7 ××  ×€€A€deliberate€act€is€one€ð ðperformed€with€a€cool€purpose,ðð€and€a€premeditatedÏact€is€one€ð ðdone€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201(b)(1)€&€(2).€€An€attempted€crime€is€statutorily€defined€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(a)€A€person€commits€criminal€attempt€who,€acting€with€theÏkind€of€culpability€otherwise€required€for€the€offense:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(1)€Intentionally€engages€in€action€or€causes€a€result€thatÏwould€constitute€an€offense€if€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€the€conduct€were€as€the€person€believes€themÏto€be;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€Acts€with€intent€to€cause€a€result€that€is€an€element€of€theÏoffense,€and€believes€the€conduct€will€cause€the€resultÏwithout€further€conduct€on€the€personððs€part;€or€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€œActs›€with€intent€to€complete€a€course€of€action€or€cause€aÏresult€that€would€constitute€the€offense,€under€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€as€the€personÏbelieves€them€to€be,€and€the€conduct€constitutes€aÏsubstantial€step€toward€the€commission€of€the€offense.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€539€(Tenn.€1992),€our€supreme€courtÏdiscussed€the€elements€of€first€degree€murder€and€emphasized€the€distinctionÏbetween€the€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€A€treatise€cited€in€òòBrownóóÏprovided€some€guidance:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àððPremeditationðð€is€the€process€simply€of€thinking€about€aÏproposed€killing€before€engaging€in€the€homicidal€conduct;Ïand€ððdeliberationðð€is€the€process€of€carefully€weighing€suchÏmatters€as€the€wisdom€of€going€ahead€with€the€proposedÏkilling,€the€manner€in€which€the€killing€will€be€accomplished,Ïand€the€consequences€which€may€be€visited€upon€the€killerÏif€and€when€apprehended.€€ððDeliberationðð€is€present€if€theÏthinking,€i.e.,€the€ððpremeditation,ðð€is€being€done€...€in€a€coolÏmental€state€...€and€for€such€a€period€of€time€as€to€permit€aÏððcareful€weighing€of€the€proposed€decision.ððÌÌÓÓ2€C.€Torcia,€òòWhartonððs€Criminal€Lawóó,€ðð140€(14th€ed.€1979)(footnotes€omitted);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÏòòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€3„4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Deliberation,€therefore,Ïrequires€some€time€interval€between€the€decision€to€kill€and€the€act€itself,€during€whichÏthe€mind€is€free€from€the€influence€of€excitement€or€passion.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836ÏS.W.2d€at€539„40.€€It€is€present€when€the€circumstances€indicate€that€the€murdererÍreflected€upon€the€manner€and€the€consequences€of€his€act.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844ÏS.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€elements€of€deliberation€and€premeditation€mayÏbe€inferred€from€the€manner€and€circumstances€of€the€killing.€€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881ÏS.W.2d€at€3.ÌÌà àà àWe€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€for€the€jury€to€find€theÏelements€of€first€degree€murder€and€attempted€first€degree€murder€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€The€on€again,€off€again,€relationship€between€the€appellant€andÏSavonna€Sanders€was€apparent€from€the€record.€€On€the€day€before€the€shooting,ÏSanders€moved€out€of€the€appellantððs€apartment€and€returned€to€live€with€KennethÏRoberts.€€The€appellant€was€upset€by€Sandersðð€departure,€and€he€told€several€friendsÏthat€she€had€left€him€and€had€taken€his€furniture.€€After€trying€to€purchase€a€pistol€fromÏScott€Patterson,€the€appellant€acquired€a€.22€caliber€rifle€and€went€to€Wal„Mart€to€buyÏammunition.€€On€the€morning€of€the€shootings,€the€appellant€drove€to€the€United€OilÏconvenience€store€and€confronted€Sanders€and€Roberts€in€the€early€morning€hoursÏbefore€the€store€opened€for€business.€€He€was€in€possession€of€the€semi„automaticÏrifle€and€he€shot€each€victim€several€times.€€Moreover,€he€later€told€a€witness€that€heÏhad€beat€Sanders€in€the€head€with€the€rifle€after€shooting€her,€and€that€he€had€shotÏRoberts,€rolled€him€over,€and€then€shot€him€again.€€In€sum,€we€conclude€that€theÏevidence€was€legally€sufficient€for€the€jury€to€have€found€the€elements€of€the€offenses.€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).ÌÌà@ àò òIIó ó€à àà à€€€€Ìà àà àIn€his€second€issue,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏexcluding€statements€he€made€to€Virginia€Sue€Goins€and€Jeana€Marie€KiersayÏregarding€his€plans€to€remarry€Savonna€Sanders.€€In€a€jury€out€hearing,€Virginia€SueÏGoins€testified€that€the€appellant€told€her€that€he€and€Sanders€were€ð ðgoing€to€getÏremarried.ðð€€The€statement€was€made€on€August€14,€1993,€œfour›€days€before€theÏshooting.€€Jeana€Marie€Kiersay€testified€in€the€jury€out€hearing€that€the€appellant€toldÏher€ð ðme€and€[Sanders]€is€getting€remarried€again.ðð€€The€statement€was€made€onÏAugust€4,€1993.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€statements€did€not€qualify€for€admissionÏpursuant€to€the€state€of€mind€hearsay€exception€in€Rule€803(3),€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏEvidence.€€The€court€also€commented€on€the€amount€of€time€that€passed€between€theÏappellantððs€statements€and€the€offenses.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€maintains€that€the€statements€were€admissible€to€show€hisÏstate€of€mind€pursuant€to€Rule€803(3).€€He€contends€that€his€statements€reflected€notÏonly€his€feelings€toward€the€victim€in€the€days€prior€to€the€shooting,€but€also€the€state€ofÏpassion€caused€by€the€victimððs€termination€of€the€relationship.€€The€State€contends€thatÏthe€trial€court€correctly€ruled€that€the€statements€were€inadmissible€hearsay€and€thatÏthe€appellantððs€statements€prior€to€the€offenses€were€not€relevant€to€his€criminalÏconduct.ÌÌà àà àRule€803(3)€provides€that€the€following€statements€are€admissible€asÏexceptions€to€the€general€rule€excluding€hearsay:€ð ðA€statement€of€the€declarantððs€thenÏexisting€state€of€mind,€emotion,€sensation,€or€physical€condition€(such€as€intent,€plan,Ïmotive,€design,€mental€feeling,€pain,€and€bodily€health),€but€not€including€a€statementÏof€memory€or€belief€to€prove€the€fact€remembered€or€believed€unless€it€relates€to€theÏexecution,€revocation,€identification,€or€terms€of€declarantððs€will.ðð€€A€treatise€onÏTennessee€evidence€provides€the€following€interpretation€of€the€rule:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àAlthough€Rule€803(3)€is€commonly€referred€to€as€the€state€ofÏmind€hearsay€rule,€it€extends€to€a€number€of€mentalÏprocesses€that€stretch€the€concept€of€state€of€mind.€€Thus,€byÏits€own€terms€Rule€803(3)€reaches€emotions,€sensations,Ïand€physical€condition.€€As€illustrations€of€the€processes,Ïthe€rule€cites€seven€examples:€ððintent,€plan,€motive,€design,Ïmental€feeling,€pain,€and€bodily€health.ðð€€òòIt€should€beÏobvious€that€these€examples€reflect€an€intent€that€thisÏhearsay€exception€be€read€broadly€to€embrace€virtually€allÏmental€processes€that€the€declarant€can€describeóó.ÌÌÓÓN.€Cohen,€D.€Paine,€&€S.€Sheppeard,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€(3rd€ed.€1995),Ïðð803(3).1€at€539€(emphasis€added).€€In€addition€to€showing€a€declarantððs€òòthenóó€òòexistingóóÏmental€state,€a€statement€may€also€show€a€future€or€past€mental€state.€€ð ðLogically€aÏpersonððs€feeling€toward€a€person€on€one€day€are€at€least€some€evidence€of€theÏpersonððs€feelings€toward€that€person€the€next€day.€€At€some€point,€however,€mentalÏstate€on€one€day€may€become€irrelevant€in€assessing€mental€state€far€in€the€future€orÏpast.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€ðð803(3).3€at€542.ÌÌà àà àNotwithstanding€the€breadth€of€Rule€803(3),€the€appellantððs€statementsÏwere€not€necessarily€express€declarations€of€his€mental€state,€but€rather,€wereÏcircumstantial€indications€of€his€feelings€toward€the€victim.€€As€discussed€in€òòTennesseeÏlaw€of€Evidenceóó:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIn€order€for€Rule€803(3)€to€apply,€the€declarations€of€mentalÏcondition€should€expressly€assert€the€declarantððs€mentalÏstate.€€Common€examples€include€statements€of€love€(ððI€loveÏKarenðð),€fear€(ððIððm€afraid€Adolph€will€kill€meðð),€and€hate€(ððIÏhate€himðð).€€Many€times€a€statement€does€not€literally€assertÏthe€declarantððs€mental€state€when€offered€to€prove€thatÏmental€state.€€If€so,€the€statement€should€be€admitted€asÏnonhearsay....In€any€event,€both€circumstantial€declarationsÏof€mental€state€and€express€declarations€of€mental€state€areÏadmissible.ÌÌÓÓòòSeeóó€òòidóó.,€ðð803(3).2€at€540.€€In€effect,€the€appellantððs€statements€were€not€offered€toÏprove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted,€i.e.,€that€he€and€the€victim€were,€in€fact,€going€toÏremarry.€€Rather,€the€appellantððs€statements€circumstantially€showed€his€mental€stateÏtoward€Sanders€at€the€time€the€statements€were€made.€€Thus,€the€statements€wereÏadmissible€as€nonhearsay.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.,€ðð801.7€at€498„99€(circumstantial€declarations€toÏshow€declarantððs€mental€state€are€nonhearsay).ÌÌà àà àWe€conclude,€however,€that€the€exclusion€of€this€evidence€did€notÏconstitute€reversible€error.€€There€was€extensive€direct€evidence€and€circumstantialÏevidence€of€the€appellantððs€mental€state€admitted€at€trial.€€Savonna€Sanders€testifiedÏthat€the€appellant€repeatedly€expressed€his€desire€to€remarry€her.€€NumerousÏwitnesses€testified€that€the€appellant€was€elated€to€have€reunited€with€Sanders€in€theÍweek€before€the€shooting€and€that€he€was€extremely€upset€when€Sanders€againÏterminated€the€relationship.€€Moreover,€a€defense€witness,€David€Waye,€testifiedÏwithout€objection€that€the€appellant€asked€him€to€be€the€best€man€when€he€andÏSanders€remarried.€€According€to€Waye,€the€conversation€occurred€on€August€16,Ï1993,€œtwo›€days€before€the€shooting.€€As€a€result,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððsÏruling€did€not€constitute€reversible€error€and€that€the€appellant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€onÏthis€ground.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌà àà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€charge€theÏjury€with€the€following€instruction:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àYou€have€heard€evidence€that€the€defendant€was€sufferingÏfrom€a€mental€defect,€to€wit€that€he€has€a€low€intelligenceÏquotient.€€You€may€consider€this€evidence€in€determiningÏwhether€the€defendant€possessed€the€mental€state€requiredÏfor€the€offense€of€first€degree€murder,€that€is€whether€theÏalleged€killing€was€premeditated€and€deliberate.€€You€mayÏalso€consider€this€evidence€in€deciding€whether€theÏdefendant€was€in€a€state€of€passion€during€the€allegedÏkilling.ÌÌThe€State€maintains€that€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€request.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àThe€trial€judge€has€a€duty€to€give€a€complete€charge€of€the€law€applicableÏto€the€facts€of€the€case.€€òòState€v.€Harbisonóó,€704€S.W.2d€314,€319€(Tenn.€1986).€€WhereÏthe€charge€fully,€fairly,€and€correctly€conveys€the€applicable€law€to€the€jury,€there€is€noÍrequirement€that€the€trial€court€give€a€specially€requested€instruction.€€òòState€v.ÏEdwardsóó,€540€S.W.2d€641,€649€(Tenn.€1976).€€In€reviewing€the€charge€as€a€whole,€weÏnote€that€the€trial€court€correctly€charged€the€elements€of€the€offense,€the€mental€stateÏrequired€to€commit€the€crimes,€and€the€Stateððs€burden€to€prove€these€elements€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt.€€With€regard€to€mental€state€the€instruction€stated:€à à€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€mental€state€of€the€accused€at€the€time€he€allegedlyÏdecided€to€kill€must€be€carefully€considered€in€order€toÏdetermine€whether€the€accused€was€sufficiently€free€fromÏexcitement€and€passion€as€to€be€capable€of€premeditation.€ÏIf€the€design€to€kill€was€formed€with€deliberation€andÏpremeditation,€it€is€immaterial€that€the€accused€may€haveÏbeen€in€a€state€of€passion€when€the€design€was€carried€intoÏeffect.€€Furthermore,€premeditation€can€be€found€if€theÏdecision€to€kill€was€first€formed€during€the€heat€of€passion,Ïbut€the€accused€commits€the€act€after€the€passion€hasÏsubsided.ÌÌÓÓThe€charge€also€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àYou€may€consider€all€the€facts€and€circumstances€inÏevidence€including€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€mentalÏstate€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€acts€to€determine€if€the€StateÏhas€proved€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€all€of€the€elementsÏrequired€to€be€proved€in€each€of€the€alleged€offenses....ÌÌÓÓThese€instructions€fully,€fairly,€and€correctly€charged€the€jury€on€law€applicable€to€thisÏcase.€€We€conclude,€therefore,€that€the€trial€court€did€not€commit€reversible€error€inÏrefusing€to€include€the€appellantððs€requested€instruction€in€the€charge€to€the€jury.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€ÌÌà@ àò òIVó óÌà àà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€StateððsÏmotion€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€range€on€possible€penalties€for€the€charged€offensesÏand€all€the€lesser€included€offenses.€€The€appellant€claims€that€the€Stateððs€motion€wasÏuntimely€and€that€the€governing€statute,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„201(b)€is€unconstitutional.€€The€State€maintains€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€properlyÏgranted€the€motion€and€that,€in€any€event,€the€appellant€has€not€shown€that€he€wasÏprejudiced€by€the€ruling.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€of€this€trial,€the€applicable€statute€provided€that€ð ð[i]n€allÏcontested€criminal€cases€...€upon€the€motion€of€either€party,€filed€with€the€court€òòprior€toÏthe€selection€of€the€juryóó,€the€court€shall€charge€the€possible€penalties€for€the€offenseÏcharged€and€all€lesser€included€offenses.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201(b)(emphasisÏadded).× ƒ9 ××  ×€€The€record€indicates€that€the€State€made€its€motion€pursuant€to€this€statuteÏon€the€morning€of€the€first€day€of€trial.€€The€appellant€objected€on€the€ground€it€wasÏuntimely.€€The€trial€court€noted€for€the€record€that€although€voir€dire€had€begun,€noÏjurors€had€yet€been€selected€or€removed€from€the€panel.€€In€short,€no€peremptoryÏchallenges€had€been€made€and€voir€dire€had€not€been€completed.€€Thus,€the€courtÏgranted€the€Stateððs€motion.ÌÌà àà àAlthough€a€motion€may€be€made€by€either€party,€it€is€often€made€by€theÏdefense.€€In€òòState€v.€Cookóó,€816€S.W.2d€322,€326€(Tenn.€1991),€the€supreme€courtÏnoted€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„201(b)€gave€the€defendant€aÏstatutory€right€to€have€the€jury€instructed€on€the€range€of€penalties.€€Obviously€theÏstatute€affords€the€State€the€same€right.€€With€regard€to€the€timing€of€such€a€motion,€aÏpanel€of€our€court€has€noted€that€ð ðthe€state€[or€defense]€must€be€given€notice€of€thisÏrequest€prior€to€jury€selection€so€that€prospective€jurors€may€be€questioned€about€theÏeffect€that€knowing€the€possible€punishment€might€have€upon€their€verdict.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏDonald€E.€McIntoshóó,€No.€85„27„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€May€23,€1986),€slip€op.Ïat€5.€€Accordingly,€in€òòState€v.€Royce€Wayne€Bowie€&€Richard€Steve€Bowieóó,€No.€86„212„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Mar.€12,€1987),€our€court€affirmed€the€denial€of€aÏdefense€motion€made€during,€and€not€before,€jury€selection.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€LindaÏMarie€Van€Tolóó,€No.€47€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€July€23,€1986)(request€made€afterÏjury€impaneled€too€late).€ÌÌà àà àAlthough€the€ideal€practice€would€be€to€file€a€motion€pursuant€to€thisÏstatute€in€advance€of€trial,€the€State€offered€no€reasons€for€filing€its€motion€after€voirÏdire€had€commenced.€€Nonetheless,€the€trial€court€observed€that€no€juror€had€yet€beenÏselected€and€that€no€peremptory€challenges€had€yet€been€made.€€Additionally,€theÏappellant€did€not€show€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€the€StateððsÍmotion€at€that€stage€of€the€proceedings.× ƒ: ××  ×€€We€conclude€that€it€was€within€the€trialÏcourtððs€discretion€as€to€whether€to€grant€or€deny€the€Stateððs€request.€€In€light€of€theÏforegoing€considerations,€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€was€not€an€abuse€of€its€discretion.ÌÌà àà àIn€challenging€the€constitutionality€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÏ40„35„201(b),€the€appellant€argues€that€it€is€improper€to€allow€the€jury€to€speculate€onÏthe€length€of€the€sentence€when€determining€guilt€or€innocence.€€The€appellant€citesÏòòFarris€v.€Stateóó,€535€S.W.2d€608€(Tenn.€1976)€in€support€of€his€position.€€In€òòFarrisóó,€aÏplurality€of€our€supreme€court€said€that€a€statute€which€required€the€trial€court€to€chargeÏthe€jury€regarding€ð ðcertain€powers€and€duties€of€the€Board€of€Pardons€and€Paroles,Ïgood€behavior€allowances,€and€the€allowing€of€honor€time,ðð€was€unconstitutionallyÏvague.€€òòIdóó.€at€613„14.€€The€statute€challenged€by€the€appellant€does€not€contain€theÏprovisions€discussed€in€òòFarrisóó;€rather,€it€allowed€the€court€to€inform€the€jury€on€theÏstatutory€range€of€possible€penalties.€€Thus,€the€dicta€in€òòFarrisóó€does€not€stand€for€theÏproposition€advanced€by€the€appellant.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€has€failed€to€showÏany€other€grounds€upon€which€to€invalidate€the€statute€on€constitutional€grounds.€ÏThus,€he€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.ÌÌà@ àò òVó óÌà àà àThe€appellantððs€final€contention€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€theÏprosecutor€to€engage€in€misconduct€during€summation.€€The€appellant€takes€issue€withÏthe€following€remarks€made€by€the€prosecutor:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àMaybe€he€just€made€one€mistake,€maybe€that€was€it.€€And€ifÏyou€want€to€see€premeditation,€right€there€it€is,€ððTil€Death€DoÏUs€Part,ðð€the€t„shirt€that€he€put€on,€and€that€he€wore€overÏthere,€and€he€took€that€fully€loaded€gun.€€There€it€is.€€€€ÌÌÓÓThe€trial€court€overruled€the€appellantððs€contemporaneous€objection€at€trial.€€OnÏappeal,€the€appellant€maintains€that€the€argument€was€not€based€on€evidence€withinÏthe€record€and€that€the€argument€was€improper€and€prejudicial.€€The€State€maintainsÏthat€the€argument€was€fairly€based€on€evidence€in€the€record€and€that,€in€any€event,Ïthe€argument€did€not€affect€the€outcome€of€the€trial.ÌÌà àà àOur€supreme€court€has€observed€that€ð ðargument€of€counsel€is€a€valuableÏprivilege€that€should€not€be€unduly€restricted.ðð€€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€527€S.W.2d€737,€739Ï(Tenn.€1975);€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€809€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€trial€court€hasÏthe€discretion€to€control€the€argument€of€counsel,€and€this€court€will€not€disturb€the€trialÏcourtððs€rulings€absent€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€527€S.W.2d€at€739.€ÏIn€evaluating€a€claim€of€prosecutorial€misconduct,€we€must€consider€the€context€of€theÏallegedly€improper€conduct,€the€prosecutorððs€intent,€the€curative€measures,€if€any,Ïtaken€by€the€trial€court,€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€conduct€together€with€any€otherÏerrors€in€the€record,€and€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.ÏBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€809.€€In€sum,€we€consider€whether€the€prosecutorððs€conductÍwas€so€inflammatory€that€it€affected€the€result€of€the€trial€to€the€prejudice€of€theÏappellant.€€òòIdóó.€at€809.ÌÌà àà àWe€disagree€with€the€appellantððs€contention€that€there€was€no€evidenceÏin€the€record€to€support€the€inference€argued€by€the€prosecutor.€According€to€DetectiveÏSampson,€the€appellant€was€arrested€on€the€day€the€offenses€were€committed.€€WhenÏthe€appellant€was€arrested€he€was€wearing€a€black€t„shirt€with€the€word€ð ðTil€Death€DoÏUs€Part.ðð€€The€picture€on€the€t„shirt€depicted€a€man€and€women€getting€married€next€toÏa€skeleton€with€a€hood,€or,€as€Sampson€testified,€the€grim€reaper.€€The€Stateððs€expertÏwitness€testified€that€human€blood€was€found€on€the€t„shirt,€lending€an€inference€thatÏthe€appellant€was€wearing€the€t„shirt€when€the€crimes€were€committed.€€Significantly,Ïthe€appellant€did€not€object€when€the€t„shirt€was€admitted€into€evidence.× ƒ; ××  ×€€Thus,€whileÏthe€inference€of€premeditation€from€the€t„shirt€may€have€been€debatable,€it€appears€toÏhave€been€œfairly›€drawn€from€the€evidence€in€the€record.€€Moreover,€the€argument€wasÏnot€so€inflammatory€or€prejudicial€as€to€have€affected€the€result€to€the€detriment€of€theÏappellant.€€The€appellant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.ÌÌà0 àà àò òÌà@ àVIó óÌà àà àThe€State€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€the€appellantððsÏtwenty€year€sentence€for€attempted€first€degree€murder€to€run€concurrently€with€the€lifeÏsentence€for€first€degree€murder.€€Based€on€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€theÏoffenses,€the€State€insists€that€the€appellant€is€a€dangerous€offender€as€defined€inÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„115(b)(4),€and€that€consecutive€sentencesÏare€reasonably€related€to€the€seriousness€of€the€crimes€and€necessary€to€protect€theÏpublic.€€The€appellant€maintains€that€the€trial€court€correctly€ordered€the€sentences€toÏrun€concurrently.ÌÌà àà àWhen€a€party€challenges€the€length,€range€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence,€the€reviewing€court€must€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€on€the€record€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€were€correct.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€The€presumption€of€correctness€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ï169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€burden€of€showing€that€a€sentence€is€improper€is€on€theÏappealing€party.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)(sentencing€commissionÏcomments).ÌÌà àà àConsecutive€sentencing€may€be€appropriate€if€the€court€finds€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€one€or€more€of€the€factors€set€forth€in€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„35„115(b).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€227,€230€(Tenn.Í1978);€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1976).€€Our€supreme€court€hasÏrecently€commented€on€the€rationale€for€consecutive€sentencing:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àSection€40„35„115€requires€proof€of€particular€facts€definingÏan€offender€subject€to€consecutive€sentences.€€TheÏrationale€for€consecutive€sentences€stated€in€òòGrayóó€andÏòòTayloróó€is€that€they€be€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€ofÏthe€offenses€committed€and€serve€to€protect€the€publicÏ(society)€from€further€criminal€acts€by€those€persons€whoÏresort€to€aggravated€criminal€conduct.€€This€statement€ofÏprinciple€cannot€be€separtated€into€a€discrete€findings€ofÏfact€which€in€every€case€would€justify€the€imposition€ofÏconsecutive€sentencing.€€òòIt€does,€however,€recognize€thoseÏlimitations€on€consecutive€sentencing€established€by€theÏCourt,€that€consecutive€sentencing€cannot€be€imposedÏunless€the€terms€reasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€theÏoffenses€committed€and€are€necessary€in€order€to€protectÏthe€public€from€further€serious€criminal€conduct€by€theÏdefendantóó.€€ÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938€(Tenn.€1995)(emphasis€added).ÌÌà àà àThe€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€presentenceÏreport,€the€evidence€at€trial€and€sentencing,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€and€theÏprinciples€of€sentencing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b).€€Moreover,€the€trial€courtÏentered€meticulous€written€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€at€the€conclusion€ofÏsentencing.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€599„600€(Tenn.€1994).€€Thus,€theÏcourtððs€findings€clearly€warrant€the€presumption€of€correctness€afforded€in€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€40„35„401(d).ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€observed€that€the€appellant€was€a€dangerous€offenderÏbecause€his€behavior€showed€ð ðlittle€or€no€regard€for€human€life€and€no€hesitationÏabout€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„115(b)(4).€€However,€in€considering€whether€consecutive€sentencing€wasÏappropriate€pursuant€to€this€section,€the€court€also€analyzed€the€factors€set€forth€inÏòòState€v.€Woodsóó,€814€S.W.2d€378€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991):ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(a)€whether€the€defendantððs€behavior€indicated€little€or€noÏregard€for€human€life;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)€whether€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€offenseÏwere€aggravated;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(c)€whether€confinement€for€an€extended€period€of€time€isÏnecessary€to€protect€society€from€the€defendantððsÏunwillingness€to€lead€a€productive€life€and€[his]€resort€toÏcriminal€activity€in€furtherance€of€his€anti„social€life€style;Ïand€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(d)€whether€the€aggregate€length€of€the€sentences,€ifÏconsecutive,€reasonably€relates€to€the€offenses€committedÏby€the€defendant.ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€380.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€offensesÏœsupported€the€first›€two€factors€and€weighed€in€favor€of€consecutive€sentencing.€ÏHowever,€the€court€then€found€that€the€appellant€had€no€prior€criminal€convictions,Ïexhibited€a€low€level€of€intelligence,€had€voluntarily€surrendered€to€authorities,€had€aÏgood€employment€record,€and€had€a€peaceful€reputation.€€Thus,€after€making€theseÏdetailed€findings,€the€court€concluded€that€concurrent€sentences€were€reasonablyÍrelated€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€and€that€consecutive€sentences€were€notÏnecessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€acts€by€the€appellant.€€€€ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€the€State€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€theÏcriteria€in€òòWoodsóó€in€light€of€the€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€òòsupraóó.€ÏIn€òòWilkersonóó,€the€supreme€court€modified€òòWoodððsóó€requirements€for€strict€factualÏfindings€particularly€with€regard€to€a€defendantððs€ð ðanti„socialðð€lifestyle.€€Moreover,€theÏsupreme€court€said€that€òòWoodsóó€was€approved€only€to€the€extent€that€it€was€consistentÏwith€the€principles€espoused€in€òòWilkersonóó.€€However,€the€supreme€court€adhered€toÏthe€view€that€not€every€dangerous€offender€deserves€consecutive€sentences:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àProof€that€an€offenderððs€behavior€indicated€little€or€noÏregard€for€human€life€and€no€hesitation€about€committing€aÏcrime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,€is€proof€thatÏthe€offender€is€a€dangerous€offender,€but€it€may€not€beÏsufficient€to€sustain€consecutive€sentences.€€Every€offenderÏconvicted€of€two€or€more€dangerous€crimes€is€not€aÏdangerous€offender€subject€to€consecutive€sentences;Ïconsequently,€the€provisions€of€Section€40„35„115€cannotÏbe€read€in€isolation€from€the€other€provisions€of€the€Act.€€òòTheÏproof€must€also€establish€that€the€terms€imposed€areÏœreasonabl›œy›€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committedÏand€are€necessary€in€order€to€protect€the€public€from€furtherÏcriminal€acts€by€the€offender.€€In€addition,€the€SentencingÏReform€Act€requires€the€application€of€the€sentencingÏprinciples€set€forth€in€the€Act€applicable€in€all€cases.€€TheÏAct€requires€a€principled€justification€for€every€sentence,Ïincluding,€of€course,€consecutive€sentencesóó.Ì€€€€€€€à àÌÓÓòòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€938€(emphasis€added).ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€we€disagree€with€the€Stateððs€contention€that€òòWilkersonóóÏrequires€consecutive€sentencing€in€this€case.€€The€trial€courtððs€detailed€findings,Ïalthough€citing€òòWoodsóó,€indicate€that€it€considered€all€of€the€sentencing€principles€andÏfactors€mentioned€in€òòWilkersonóó.€€In€particular,€the€court€found€that€the€sentenceÏimposed€was€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€crimes€and€that€consecutiveÏsentences€were€not€necessary€to€protect€the€public€from€the€appellant.€€òòState€v.ÏWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€938.€€Given€the€trial€courtððs€detailed€findings,€and€theÏpresumption€of€correctness€attendant€to€those€findings,€we€conclude€that€the€State€hasÏfailed€to€show€the€sentences€were€inappropriate.€€The€Stateððs€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€JudgeÌ