ÿWPC ûtÆJö -ÀéD\¸~~< â\cÁøïÁ& ßØ kŒ*²wF8ÿp _üVr·àu I³[qúQw÷*éÇfÝÅ•æZ [æ47”&›ßV ìÌRë„% äUjŽk‚<¹ÐÏh¡éßgµP„+Ì`y3ïÖ>6²q!_¶©8ìñ+‘^ 8 ìÈ2Ö48½kþ›¡pâ9- ÿ,x9¬, jÛ>!Á¡Lšw'9åÑÙ«©_/H`•êÅ-__3˜Ür|™,ëoVþ)þfLK#RT„úº„µê‡T(ðLá¡ûüÏ<`­±p¸v´­§ÒÉüW] ÆpÎôíêH7ª÷ÂrâÅÙ“¿Áf * ü°zÒÂ$f½6väõÇ~ï¼ÝL…;§äïVKtzµXÚúMHîÝá<8@±™1°Md¢öqâ+ÁïÂwյͷ_R‡ pàý¯ú+NUê“H5No;„5èxµÁEÚ¨NŸøw+<7˜u­R’: Ì}0EiÚ«*{N}}G‘8 B6 …’Üèú_‘H òàŽ—µé°âÒd‘ÌtÀy"H}”SPb6ñ7‹—!šSÌ‚F±¼|ï„νGZ‰…´–¯ãórl©¾À…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ LÍ U: bS w@[ 4› ¯ 0ƾ 0D„ UNÈ Y Boÿ±°U:¸òU: BIIIIIIIIœfff D3 0D5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 AOyÆÈÈ 0DŽ D/Ò B˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MSÈðððÈð0nLÐ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- 7 8D9D:D;D<=U>D?eCÓ€ýhµ&3|xN(v(2‰ $¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xú™XXXÔÔ€ôºôXXú™Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular OÝ ƒ è'$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XPe XXXÔÔ€ôõ«ô XXPeÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Appellant€contends€that€the€subsequent€dismissal€of€the€charges€against€Norman€for€being€anÐ `  Ðaccessory€after€the€fact€and€coercion€of€a€witness€proves€that€Norman€did€have€a€leniency€agreement€withÏthe€State.€€However,€the€record€indicates€that€the€charge€for€being€an€accessory€after€the€fact€wasÐ Ü | J Ðdismissed€because€there€was€insufficient€evidence€to€support€a€conviction,€and€the€charge€for€coercion€ofÏa€witness€was€dismissed€because€the€victim€did€not€want€the€case€to€be€prosecuted.€€Further,€theÏprosecutor€expressly€informed€the€jury€that€if€Norman€testified€truthfully,€the€charge€for€being€an€accessoryÏafter€the€fact€would€be€dropped.€€Ì 8Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€1995€amendment€eliminated€deliberation€as€an€element€of€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóóÐ `  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(Supp.€1998)€(ð ðFirst€degree€murder€is:€A€premeditated€andÏintentional€killing€of€another.ðð). õÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Appellant€contends€that€the€subsequent€dismissal€of€the€charges€against€Norman€forÐ `  Ðbeing€an€accessory€after€the€fact€and€coercion€of€a€witness€proves€that€Norman€did€have€aÏleniency€agreement€with€the€State.€€However,€the€record€indicates€that€the€charge€for€being€anÐ 8 Ø  Ðaccessory€after€the€fact€was€dismissed€because€there€was€insufficient€evidence€to€support€aÏconviction,€and€the€charge€for€coercion€of€a€witness€was€dismissed€because€the€victim€did€notÏwant€the€case€to€be€prosecuted.€€Further,€the€prosecutor€expressly€informed€the€jury€that€ifÏNorman€testified€truthfully,€the€charge€for€being€an€accessory€after€the€fact€would€be€dropped.€€Ì,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô€Xú™XXXÔÔ€îÕ¨ îXXú™ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€«‡  îîÕ¨ÔÐ  ÐÌò òJuly€6,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôºô «‡ÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d ’Ý ƒ è'$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XPe XXXÔÔ€ôõ«ô XXPeÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€1995€amendment€eliminated€deliberation€as€an€element€of€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð `  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(Supp.€1998)€(ð ðFirst€degree€murder€is:€A€premeditated€and€intentional€killingÏof€another.ðð).'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñCññ?ñ›ñ?ññCñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š"òŠXXÔÔ€Š@EŠŠŠ"òÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€V4XXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñCñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E<f  tt0"t` ¨Ørß›ñCñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌAPRIL€SESSION,€1999ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9708„CR„00339Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àWASHINGTON€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€ARDEN€L.€HILLó óÐ Xø  Ðò òJAMES€E.€GAYLES,ó óà h àà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal€„€First€Degree€Murder)Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8Ø ÐÌDONALD€E.€SPURRELLà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ ( È Ð128€East€Market€Streetà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  !À ÐJohnson€City,€TN€€37604Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àERIK€W.€DAABÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€CROCKETTÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€CRUMLEYÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àKENT€GARLANDÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneysÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àFirst€Judicial€DistrictÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJonesborough,€TN€€37659ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  p6-.S ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„ƒ™„ŠŠ@EÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†Š@EŠ„„ƒ™Õ #ÔÐ `  Ðñ;ñÌñ;ññ8ñÌÌñ8ñÓ  ÓÓÓñ9ññ7ñÔ‡ Š2‹ŠŠŠ1XÔñ7ññ9ññ:ññ7ñÔ‡XPe XŠŠ1XÔñ7ññ:ññ7ñÑ7€V4XXdìXXdì7Ññ7ññ:ññ7ñà@®®.®àñ7ññ:ññ7ñò òÌó óÌà ` àOn€July€7,€1993,€Appellant€James€E.€Gayles€was€charged€with€one€countÏof€first€degree€murder.€€After€a€jury€trial€on€February€6ð!ð7,€1995,€Appellant€wasÏconvicted€of€first€degree€murder€and€was€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.€ÏAppellant€challenges€his€conviction,€raising€the€following€issues:Ìà0 ` à1)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€his€conviction;€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€the€State€improperly€failed€to€disclose€a€leniency€agreement€itÏhad€with€one€of€its€witnesses.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ÑÑ*®àò òI.€€FACTSó óˆÐ $ Ä ÐÌà ` àOfficer€Lisa€Coppock€of€the€Johnson€City€Police€Department€testified€thatÏon€May€2,€1993,€she€was€dispatched€to€investigate€a€shooting€in€the€parking€lotÏof€Pro„Diesel€in€Johnson€City.€€When€she€arrived,€she€found€Darrell€SturdivandtÏlying€on€his€back€next€to€a€blue€vehicle.€€Sturdivandt€was€declared€dead€at€theÏscene.€€It€appeared€that€he€had€a€small€caliber€gunshot€wound€in€the€middle€ofÏhis€back.€€There€was€also€a€spent€.25€caliber€shell€casing€on€the€ground€next€toÏSturdivandtððs€right€foot.€€€ÌÌà ` àDoctor€William€McCormick€testified€that€he€examined€Sturdivandtððs€bodyÏon€May€2,€1993.€€Dr.€McCormick€determined€that€Sturdivandt€had€died€as€a€resultÏâ âof€being€shot€in€the€back€with€a€.25€caliber€bullet.€€Dr.€McCormick€furtherÐ t7./ Ðdetermined€that€Sturdivandt€had€a€blood€alcohol€level€of€.058€and€traces€ofÏmarijuana€in€his€system€when€he€died.€Ìâ âÌà ` àPatrick€Hale€testified€that€he€was€at€the€Black€&€Tan€Club€on€May€2,€1993,Ïwhen€he€heard€some€gunshots€coming€from€the€vicinity€of€Pro„Diesel.€€WhenÏHale€looked€in€the€direction€of€Pro„Diesel,€he€saw€Appellant€run€and€get€in€a€vanÏdriven€by€Stephanie€Bowman.€€Hale€then€heard€Appellant€yell,€ð ðletððs€go,€letððs€goððÏand€the€van€accelerated€down€the€street.€€€ÌÌà ` àAnthony€Forney€testified€that€he€was€a€passenger€in€Bowmanððs€van€whenÏAppellant€jumped€in€the€van€and€said,€ð ðletððs€go.ðð€€Anthony€Forney€noticed€thatÏAppellant€smelled€like€firecrackers€or€gunpowder€and€appeared€to€be€actingÏparanoid€and€frightened.€Forney€could€see€the€shape€of€a€gun€hidden€underÏAppellantððs€shirt.€ÌÌà ` àDwight€Forney€testified€that€the€night€before€the€shooting,€Appellant€hadÏstated€that€ð ðif€people€didnððt€quit€messing€over€him€he€was€going€to€take€somebodyÏoutð"ðsomeone€out,€or,€make€an€example€of€somebody.ðð€ÌÌà ` àCharles€Delapp€testified€that€on€May€2,€1993,€he€saw€Appellant€walkÏtoward€a€blue€car€in€the€Pro„Diesel€parking€lot.€€Shortly€thereafter,€Delapp€heardÏa€gunshot€and€saw€Appellant€jogging€away€from€the€area€where€the€sound€of€theÏgunshot€originated.€€Appellant€then€got€in€a€van€and€the€van,€drove€away.€€DelappÏcould€see€that€Appellant€had€wrapped€a€T„shirt€around€his€hand.€Ìâ âÐ à7€.0 Ðà ` àJason€Beam€testified€that€he€was€a€friend€of€Sturdivandt.€He€had€seenÏâ âSturdivandt€steal€cocaine€from€drug€dealers€by€taking€it€out€of€their€hands€andÏfleeing€or€by€giving€them€less€money€than€the€cocaine€was€worth.€ÌÌà ` àAlonzo€Norman€testified€that€he€witnessed€a€drug€transaction€in€which€anÏindividual€gave€one€dollar€to€Appellant€for€fifty€dollars€worth€of€cocaine.€€AppellantÏappeared€to€be€upset€and€stated,€ð ðman,€I€seen€him€before€and€Iððll€see€him€again.ðð€ÌÌà ` àAccording€to€Norman,€on€May€2,€1993,€Appellant€came€to€his€residenceÏand€told€Norman€that€he€wanted€to€go€to€New€York€with€him.€€Appellant€stated,Ïð ðI€think€I€shot€somebody.ðð€€Appellant€also€stated,€ð ðthe€man€tried€to€pull€somethingÏout€on€me€and€I€shot€him.ðð€€When€Norman€asked€Appellant€who€he€had€shot,ÏAppellant€stated€that€he€had€shot€ð ðthe€man€thatð"ðthat€gave€[me]€the€dollar€for€theÏfifty.ðð€ÌÌà ` àStephanie€Bowman€testified€that€she€was€driving€a€van€on€May€2,€1993,Ïwhen€Appellant€came€running€across€the€street€with€a€gun€in€his€hand.€€AppellantÏgot€in€the€van€and€yelled,€ð ðletððs€goð"ðletððs€go.ðð€€Appellant€stated,€ð ðwhat€the€hell€areÏyou€all€doing€.€.€.€you€all€are€riding€around€having€fun€while€I€just€had€to€do€aÏman.ðð€€Bowman€noticed€that€when€Appellant€got€in€the€van,€she€could€smell€whatÏappeared€to€be€the€odor€of€firecrackers€or€gunpowder.€ÌÌà ` àTeresa€Gayles,€Nicole€Friday,€Derrick€Friday,€Denika€Harper,€and€Jo€HazelÏall€testified€that€Appellant€was€in€New€York€on€May€2,€1993.€ÌÌà@XX®àò òII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ Ð9p02 Їà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction€for€first€degree€murder.€€Appellant€concedes€that€the€evidence€wasÏsufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€second€degree€murder,€but€contends€that€itÏwas€insufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€first€degree€murder€because€the€StateÏfailed€to€establish€the€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.ÌÌà ` àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€CourtÏis€obliged€to€review€that€challenge€according€to€certain€well-settled€principles.€€AÏverdict€of€guilty€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimonyÏof€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€in€favor€of€theÏState.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).€€Although€an€accusedÐ À` Ðis€originally€cloaked€with€a€presumption€of€innocence,€a€jury€verdict€removes€thisÏpresumption€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,Ð   @ Ð914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,€on€appeal,€the€burden€of€proof€rests€with€Appellant€toÏdemonstrate€the€insufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€On€appeal,€ð ðtheÐ €$  Ð[S]tate€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€allÏreasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€€òòId.óó€€WhereÐ `(  Ðthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€contested€on€appeal,€the€relevant€question€forÏthe€reviewing€court€is€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏaccused€guilty€of€every€element€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.Ed.2d€560Ð  0À&( Ð(1979).€€In€conducting€our€evaluation€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€isÏprecluded€from€reweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€929Ð 4 *, ÐS.W.2d€380,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Moreover,€this€Court€may€notÏsubstitute€its€own€inferences€ð ðfor€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€fromÏcircumstantial€evidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð Ð9p02 ÐApp.€1990).€€Finally,€Rule€13(e)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€ProcedureÏprovides,€ð ðfindings€of€guilt€in€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€juryÏshall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trierÏof€fact€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ððÌÌà ` àWhen€Sturdivandt€was€killed€in€1993,€Tennesseeððs€first€degree€murderÏstatute€provided€that€ð ð[f]irst€degree€murder€is:€[a]n€intentional,€premeditated€andÏdeliberate€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202€(1993).ñ?ñ׃'×ñ?ññ?ñ׃×ñ?ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð ð  ÐPremeditation€requires€a€showing€of€a€previously€formed€design€or€intent€to€kill.€ÏòòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992).€€€Deliberation€requires€that€theÐ Ðp Ðoffense€be€committed€with€cool€purpose,€free€of€the€passions€of€the€moment.€€òòId.óó€Ð À` ÐAlthough€premeditation€ð ðmay€be€formed€in€an€instant,€deliberation€requires€someÏperiod€of€reflection,€during€which€the€mind€is€ððfree€from€the€influence€ofÏexcitement,€or€passion.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€538€(Tenn.€1992)Ð "0 Ð(citation€omitted).€€While€it€remains€true€that€no€specific€length€of€time€is€requiredÏfor€the€formation€of€a€cool,€dispassionate€intent€to€kill,€more€than€a€ð ðsplit„secondððÏof€reflection€is€required€in€order€to€satisfy€the€elements€of€premeditation€andÏdeliberation.€€òòId.óó€at€543.€€Ð P*ð " ÐÌà ` àThe€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€are€questions€for€the€juryÏwhich€may€be€established€by€proof€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€killing.€ÏòòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€660€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2dÐ 2°(* Ð214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Tennessee€courts€have€delineated€severalÏcircumstances€that€may€be€indicative€of€premeditation€and€deliberation,€includingÐ ð5,. Ðfacts€from€which€motive€may€be€inferred,€òòBordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€222;€declarationsÐ `  Ðby€the€defendant€of€an€intent€to€kill,€òòState€v.€Pikeóó,€978€S.W.2d€904,€914€(Tenn.Ð P ð Ð1998);€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€an€unarmed€victim,€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2dÐ @ à Ðat€841;€and€facts€about€the€nature€of€the€killing,€€òòBordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€222.Ð 0Ð ÐÌà ` àInitially,€we€conclude€that€when€the€evidence€is€viewed€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€State,€the€evidence€was€clearly€sufficient€for€a€rational€jury€to€findÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€Appellant€was€the€person€who€killed€Sturdivandt.€ÏHale€and€Delapp€both€saw€Appellant€run€away€from€the€scene€of€the€murder€andÏget€in€a€van€shortly€after€they€heard€gunshots.€€Bowman€and€Anthony€ForneyÏboth€smelled€the€odor€of€firecrackers€or€gunpowder€when€Appellant€got€in€theÏvan.€€Further,€Anthony€Forney€could€see€the€shape€of€a€gun€hidden€underÏAppellantððs€shirt,€and€Bowman€actually€saw€a€gun€in€Appellantððs€hand.€€InÏaddition,€Appellant€told€Bowman€that€he€ð ðjust€had€to€do€a€man.ðð€€Finally,€AppellantÏtold€Norman€on€the€night€of€the€shooting€that€he€had€just€shot€the€man€who€hadÏpreviously€given€him€one€dollar€for€fifty€dollarððs€worth€of€cocaine.ÌÌà ` àWe€also€conclude€that€when€the€evidence€is€viewed€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€State,€the€evidence€was€sufficient€for€a€rational€jury€to€findÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€Appellant€intentionally€killed€Sturdivandt€withÏpremeditation€and€deliberation.€€First,€the€State€presented€evidence€thatÏAppellant€had€a€motive€to€kill€Sturdivandt€because€Sturdivandt€had€cheated€himÏduring€a€drug€transaction.€€Norman€witnessed€an€individual€pay€one€dollar€toÏAppellant€for€fifty€dollarððs€worth€of€cocaine€and€Norman€heard€Appellant€say€thatÏhe€had€seen€that€individual€before€and€he€would€see€him€again.€€Norman€alsoÏbelieved€that€Appellant€appeared€to€be€upset€at€the€time.€€Further,€Appellant€toldÐ Ð9p02 ÐDwight€Forney€the€night€before€the€shooting€that€€ð ðif€people€didnððt€quit€messingÏover€him€he€was€going€to€take€somebody€outð"ðsomeone€out,€or,€make€anÏexample€of€somebody.ðð€€Shortly€after€the€shooting,€Appellant€told€Norman€that€heÏhad€shot€the€individual€who€had€paid€him€one€dollar€for€fifty€dollarððs€worth€ofÏcocaine.€€ÌÌà ` àSecond,€while€there€was€no€evidence€that€Appellant€had€previouslyÏexpressed€an€intent€to€kill€Sturdivandt,€there€was€clearly€evidence€that€AppellantÏhad€expressed€an€intent€to€get€revenge€on€Sturdivandt.€€As€previously€stated,ÏAppellant€told€Norman€that€he€would€see€the€person€who€had€cheated€him€in€theÏdrug€transaction€again€and€told€Dwight€Forney€that€he€was€going€to€make€anÏexample€out€of€someone.€€ÌÌà ` àThird,€the€evidence€showed€that€Sturdivandt€was€unarmed€when€AppellantÏshot€him.€€Beam€testified€that€he€had€never€known€Sturdivandt€to€carry€a€gun€orÏa€knife€and€Coppock€testified€that€Sturdivandt€did€not€have€any€weapons€on€hisÏperson€and€no€weapons€were€found€at€the€scene€of€the€shooting.€ò ò€ó óÐ `(  ÐÌà ` àFourth,€the€nature€of€the€killing€indicates€that€it€was€deliberate€andÏpremeditated.€€Indeed,€the€evidence€showed€that€Appellant€shot€SturdivandtÏwhen€Sturdivandt€was€facing€away€from€him.€€Further,€the€fact€that€Appellant€didÏnot€kill€Sturdivandt€until€sometime€after€the€drug€transaction€indicates€that€he€hadÏtime€to€reflect€on€his€decision€to€take€revenge€on€Sturdivandt.€Ìâ âÐ 6 ,. Ðà ` àIn€short,€we€conclude€that€this€evidence€was€sufficient€for€a€rational€jury€toÏfind€the€essential€elements€of€first€degree€murder€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏThis€issue€has€no€merit.Ìâ âÌà@  "®àò òIII.€€LENIENCY€AGREEMENTó óˆÐ  À ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€because€the€State€failedÏto€disclose€that€it€had€an€implicit€agreement€with€Norman€that€it€would€dropÏcertain€charges€against€him€and€would€be€lenient€with€respect€to€other€chargesÏif€he€testified€against€Appellant.ÌÌà ` àIn€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.Ct.€1194,€10€L.Ed.2d€215€(1963),Ð À` Ðthe€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€prosecution€has€a€constitutionalÏduty€to€furnish€the€accused€with€exculpatory€evidence€pertaining€to€either€theÏaccusedððs€guilt€or€innocence€and€the€potential€punishment€that€may€be€imposed.€ÏFailure€to€reveal€exculpatory€evidence€violates€due€process€where€the€evidenceÏis€material€either€to€guilt€or€punishment,€irrespective€of€good€faith€or€bad€faith€ofÏthe€prosecution.€€òòId.óó€373€U.S.€at€87,€83€S.Ct.€at€1196ð!ð97.€€€The€prosecution€mustÐ `*!" Ðalso€disclose€evidence€which€may€be€used€by€the€defense€to€impeach€a€witness.€ÏòòGiglio€v.€United€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€150,€154ð!ð55,€92€S.Ct.€763,€766,€31€L€Ed.2d€104Ð @.à$& Ð(1972);€òòWorkman€v.€Stateóó,€868€S.W.2d€705,€709€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€Ð 00Ð&( ÐBecause€promises€the€State€makes€to€a€witness€in€exchange€for€his€or€herÏtestimony€relate€directly€to€the€credibility€of€the€witness,€the€State€has€a€duty€toÏdisclose€evidence€of€any€promises€it€has€made€to€a€prosecution€witness€inÏexchange€for€his€or€her€testimony.€€òòHartman€v.€Stateóó,€896€S.W.2d€94,€101€(Tenn.Ð ð7.0 Ð1995)€(citation€omitted).Ð à9€02 Їà ` àBefore€a€reviewing€court€may€find€a€due€process€violation€under€òòBradyóó,€allÐ `  Ðof€the€following€four€prerequisites€must€be€satisfied:Ìñ7ññ<ñÓÓñ<ññ7ñà0 ` à1)€The€defendant€must€have€requested€the€information€(unless€theÏevidence€is€obviously€exculpatory,€in€which€case€the€State€is€bound€toÏrelease€the€information€whether€requested€or€not);Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€The€State€must€have€suppressed€the€information;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à3)€The€information€must€have€been€favorable€to€the€accused;€€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à4)€The€information€must€have€been€material.€€ñ7ññ=ñÐ ` T$` T$ Ðñ=ññ7ñÌñ7ññ<ñÓFÓñ<ññ7ñòòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€196€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€òòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.Ð ¨  Ð419,€434,€115€S.Ct.€1555,€1566,€131€L.Ed.2d€490€(1995),€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€stated€that€in€determining€whether€information€is€material,€ð ð[t]heÏquestion€is€not€whether€the€defendant€would€more€likely€than€not€have€receivedÏa€different€verdict€with€the€evidence,€but€whether€in€its€absence€he€received€a€fairÏtrial,€understood€as€a€trial€resulting€in€a€verdict€worthy€of€confidence.ðð€ÌÌà ` àDuring€the€hearing€on€Appellantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial,€Norman€testifiedÏthat€when€he€testified€at€trial,€he€was€scared€because€he€had€been€charged€withÏcoercion€of€a€witness,€being€an€accessory€after€the€fact€to€first€degree€murder,Ïand€multiple€drug€offenses.€€Norman€also€testified€that€his€attorneys€told€him€thatÏthe€prosecutor€could€not€make€any€deals€with€him€before€he€testified,€but€if€he€didÏtestify,€the€prosecutor€would€have€to€drop€the€charges€for€being€an€accessoryÏafter€the€fact€and€coercion€of€a€witness€and€the€prosecutor€would€also€be€lenientÏwith€respect€to€the€drug€charges.€€However,€Norman€admitted€that€he€had€onlyÏmet€with€the€prosecutor€one€time€before€he€testified€and€expressly€stated€that€theÏprosecutor€had€never€offered€him€anything€in€return€for€his€testimony.ÌÌà ` àMike€Kellum,€one€of€Normanððs€attorneys,€provided€an€affidavit€in€which€heÏstated€that€the€prosecutor€had€approached€him€and€said€that€if€Norman€testifiedÐ Ø8x/1 Ðtruthfully€in€Appellantððs€trial,€the€ð ðtestimony€would€be€appreciated€and€consideredÏin€any€future€plea€offers€regardingðð€the€charges€against€Norman€of€being€anÏaccessory€after€the€fact€and€coercion€of€a€witness.€€However,€Kellum€did€notÏtestify€during€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌà ` àDeborah€Huskins,€another€of€Normanððs€attorneys,€testified€during€theÏhearing€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€that€she€had€believed€that€if€Norman€testifiedÏtruthfully€at€Appellantððs€trial,€it€would€make€a€difference€in€any€sentence€heÏsubsequently€received€in€the€drug€case.€€However,€Huskins€also€testified€thatÏalthough€she€believed€it€would€benefit€Norman€to€testify€truthfully,€ð ðwe€hadÏabsolutely€no€agreement€as€to€what€plea€if€any€we€would€be€entering,€the€numberÏof€years,€ranges,€weð"ðwe€did€not€discuss€any€specifics€like€that,€not€anything.ððÏFurther,€Huskins€testified€that€she€and€Kellum€had€explained€to€Norman€that€theÏprosecutor€had€not€made€any€definite€offer€of€leniency€in€return€for€his€testimony.€ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€there€was€no€merit€to€Appellantððs€claim€that€heÏwas€entitled€to€a€new€trial€because€the€State€had€failed€to€disclose€that€it€had€aÏleniency€agreement€with€Norman.€€Although€the€trial€court€made€no€expressÏfindings€of€fact,€the€court€did€note€that€Normanððs€credibility€was€questionable.€€InÏaddition,€the€courtððs€ruling€necessarily€implies€a€finding€that€there€had€been€noÏimplicit€leniency€agreement€between€the€State€and€Norman.€€The€evidence€doesÏnot€preponderate€against€that€finding.€€Indeed,€Appellant€failed€to€introduce€anyÏevidence€that€the€prosecutor€promised€Norman€anything€definite€in€return€for€hisÏtestimony.ñ?ñ׃×ñ?ññ?ñ׃×ñ?ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€At€most,€Appellant€merely€established€that€the€prosecutor€would€takeÐ ð5,. ÐNormanððs€decision€to€testify€truthfully€into€ð ðconsiderationðð€in€any€future€pleaÏnegotiations.€€An€indefinite€offer€of€ð ðconsiderationðð€falls€far€short€of€constituting€anÏagreement.€In€addition,€although€Norman€may€well€have€believed€that€he€wouldÏreceive€leniency€in€return€for€his€testimony,€the€unilateral€belief€of€one€person€isÏinsufficient€to€create€an€agreement.€€In€short,€Appellant€had€failed€to€show€thatÏthere€was€any€agreement€between€the€State€and€Norman€in€regard€to€NormanððsÏtestimony.€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ñ7ññ9ññ7ñÔ#†XPe XX X¦¾#Ôñ7ññ9ññ:ññ7ñÔ#†Š1XŠ XXPeÔ #Ôñ7ññ:ñÌñ>ñÌà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àÌÌÌÌñ>ñÓ  Óñ>ñà ` àÌÌñ>ñÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌNORMA€MCGEE€OGLE,€JUDGE