ÿWPCÕQ …UBV %˜ 0Cž 0Uá# 6 0JA 0T‹ ß 0^ç 0hE 0r­ 0| 0†› U:! 0D[ 0Ÿ/nX? 0—4žw@² Bò 1u D3„ 0d·U:U6UU(*‹B)µDCÞ AK!²lúýØËíi¸ ÷!#a&ày)Y.è[0œC4¸ß5…—8O<k@K‚DÍFv~ßHvÓ]J AO0PÆP 0DEQ D/‰Q B¸Q<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó( !29\$¤¤Ý ƒ KÁ!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÔ€/XgàXXXÔÑÑÑ  ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(3¯$££Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ý2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô3|xü$«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@<þ6X9`(*Courier 10pt12cpiøødþ6X@É?BQø@(ßKÁ$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÔ€/XXXXÔÑÑÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal[  AØ'Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ` ÑÑÜÜÑÓ  Ó·‚^!ÿÿÿÿ6ÿÿÿÿ æ$è$ê$ë$Eì$í$Dî$ï$ð$ñ$Ó€ d  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)$$$$'ÿÿdxdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d77777Border 1dd€8Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¨Ý ƒ !ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  ÝÔ€6ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€6XÔÌÌò òDecemberÏ30,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€6ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ðÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  ÝÔ€6ôÔ€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Ú€€óóT.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)€states,€"The€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€itÏinvolved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death."Ì óÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÓ` °…X”À–XÓ€Ô€6ôÔ€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(7)€(1991)€states,€"The€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€wasÏengaged€in€committing,€or€was€an€accomplice€in€the€commission€of,€or€was€attempting€to€commit,€or€wasÏfleeing€after€committing€or€attempting€to€commit,€any€first€degree€murder,€arson,€rape,€robbery,€burglary,Ïtheft,€kidnapping,€aircraft€piracy,€or€unlawful€throwing,€placing€or€discharging€of€a€destructive€device€orÏbomb."Ì ÎÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Ô€6ôÔT.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(2)€states,€"The€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€under€theÏinfluence€of€extreme€mental€or€emotional€disturbance."€€Ì ÁÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Ô€6ôÔT.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(8)€states,€"The€capacity€of€the€defendant€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€ofÏthe€defendant's€conduct€or€to€conform€the€defendant's€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law€wasÏsubstantially€impaired€as€a€result€of€mental€disease€or€defect€or€intoxication€which€was€insufficient€toÏestablish€a€defense€to€the€crime€but€which€substantially€affected€the€defendant's€judgment."Ì _Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€6ôÔ€€The€defendant€was€indicted€for€two€additional€counts€of€arson€for€these€earlier€fires€that€were€allegedÏto€have€occurred€on€April€1,€1991,€and€April€6,€1991.€€The€trial€court€severed€these€counts€from€theÏmurder€and€aggravated€arson€trial€on€motion€of€the€defendant,€and€they€were€later€dismissed.Ì íÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Ô€6ôÔThe€evidence€regarding€the€April€1st€and€April€6th€fires€was€admitted€during€the€sentencing€phaseÏof€the€proceedings€as€part€of€the€prosecution's€attempt€to€establish€the€aggravating€circumstance€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(6),€which€provides€that€"[t]he€murder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,Ïinterfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€the€defendant€or€another."€€The€jury,Ïhowever,€rejected€this€factor.Ì WÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Ô€6ôÔThe€prosecution€apparently€learned€this€information€from€a€report€prepared€by€a€defenseÏinvestigator.€€The€trial€court€ruled,€over€defense€objections,€that€the€report€was€discoverable€and€notÏprivileged.€€The€prosecution€argued€that€it€could€cross„examine€Dr.€Meyer€with€the€defendant's€"bad€acts"Ïas€a€child€to€impeach€Dr.€Meyer's€opinions€regarding€the€defendant's€borderline€personality€and€post„traumatic€stress€disorders.€€The€rulings€of€the€trial€court€and€the€use€of€this€information€by€the€prosecutionÏare€raised€as€error€by€the€defense.Ì ÖÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Ô€6ôÔThe€defendant€went€to€trial€on€three€charges:€(1)€first€degree€murder€by€an€unlawful,€intentional,Ïpremeditated€and€deliberate€killing,€(2)€first€degree€murder€by€a€reckless€killing€committed€during€theÏperpetration€of€arson€(felony€murder),€and€(3)€aggravated€arson.€€However,€he€entered€guilty€pleas€beforeÏthe€jury€to€arson€and€felony€murder.€€After€the€trial€court€refused€to€"accept"€the€guilty€pleas,€the€defendantÏpersisted€in€such€pleas€before€the€jury,€contesting€only€the€charges€that€the€killing€was€premeditated€andÏdeliberate.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€it€could€return€a€guiltyÏverdict€for€either€felony€murder€or€for€a€premeditated€and€deliberated€murder,€but€not€for€both.€€Under€thisÏinstruction,€the€jury€reported€that€the€defendant€was€found€guilty€of€aggravated€arson€and€premeditatedÏand€deliberate€murder.€€No€finding€regarding€a€felony€murder€was€reported.€€Ì øÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€6ôÔ€€€Although€not€relevant€to€our€inquiry,€we€note€that€the€definition€of€first€degree€murder€contained€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„13„202€was€amended€in€1995.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„202€(Supp.€1996).€€Ì ÞÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€6ôÔÔ€5Ô€Ô€6ÔThe€defendant€relies€upon€òòState€v.€McCallóó,€698€S.W.2d€643€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985),€in€which€theÏvictim€had€been€shot€in€the€chest€and€later€run€over€and€dragged€by€a€car.€€This€court€held€that€it€was€errorÏto€admit€photographs€of€the€victim€because,€with€the€exception€of€the€gunshot€wound,€all€of€the€harm€toÏthe€victim€was€caused€by€the€subsequent€passing€of€a€vehicle.€€Conversely,€in€the€present€case,€theÏphotograph€that€was€admitted,€although€altered,€was€limited€in€nature€and€depicted€injuries€the€victimÏreceived€as€a€result€of€the€defendant's€conduct.€€Thus,€we€do€not€consider€òòMcCallóó€to€be€dispositive€of€thisÏissue.Ì ’Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€6ôÔThe€substantive€criminal€code€in€Tennessee€was€completely€changed,€effective€November€1,€1989.Ì ®Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€6ôÔThe€trial€in€this€case€occurred€some€seven€months€before€òòSheltonóó€was€decided.€€At€the€time€of€theÏtrial,€the€trial€court's€view€that€diminished€capacity€was€not€recognized€in€Tennessee€had€supportingÏauthority€from€this€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€645€S.W.2d€759,€763€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€òòState€v.ÏCroscupóó,€604€S.W.2d€69,€72€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).Ì {Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€6ôÔ€€In€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€730€(Tenn.€1994),€the€supreme€court€concluded€that€"when€aÏpsychologist€or€psychiatrist€does€not€prepare€a€summary€report,€but€instead€relies€on€extensiveÏmemoranda€to€record€not€only€observations€and€hypotheses€but€also€evaluations,€such€records€areÏdiscoverable€under€Rule€16(b)(1)(B)."€€In€this€case,€Dr.€Meyer€prepared€an€evaluation€€report€in€advance€ofÏtrial€and€therefore,€the€investigator's€report€is€considered€an€internal€memorandum€and€is€generallyÏnondiscoverable,€as€the€state€concedes,€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€Rule€16(b)(2).Ì EÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Ô€6ôÔWe€note€that€the€defendant€also€relies€on€òòSmith€v.€McCormickóó,€914€F.2d€1153,€1163„65€(9th€Cir.Ï1990),€which€we€conclude€is€distinguishable.€€The€Ninth€Circuit€€reversed€the€denial€of€habeas€corpusÏrelief€in€part€because€Montana's€death€penalty€structure€interfered€with€the€consideration€of€mitigatingÏevidence.€€The€defendant€is€correct€that€Montana€statutes€contained€similar€mitigation€factors€modified€byÏ"extreme"€and€"substantial."€€However,€Montana€statutes€also€provided€that€the€death€penalty€wasÏrequired€if€the€sentencer€found€one€or€more€aggravating€circumstance€and€no€mitigating€circumstancesÏ"sufficiently€substantial"€to€call€for€leniency.€òòIdóó.€at€1163.€€Tennessee€provisions€do€not€contain€such€aÏlimitation.€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(f)€and€(g).ÌÌ€Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úó󛀀Ô€6ôÔThis€statute€states,€ð ðThe€trial€judge€shall€also€include€in€the€instructions€for€the€jury€to€weigh€andÏconsider€any€mitigating€circumstances€raised€by€the€evidence€at€either€the€guilt€or€sentencing€hearing€orÏboth€òòwhich€shall€include,€but€not€be€limited€to,€those€circumstances€set€forth€in€subsection€(j).€€NoÏdistinction€shall€be€made€between€mitigating€circumstances€as€set€forth€in€subsection€(j)€and€thoseÏotherwise€raised€by€the€evidence€which€are€specifically€requested€by€either€the€state€or€the€defense€to€beÏinstructed€to€the€juryóó.€€These€instructions€and€the€manner€of€arriving€at€a€sentence€òòshall€be€givenóó€in€the€oralÏcharge€and€in€writing€to€the€jury€for€its€œdeliberations.ð𛀀(Emphasis€added).Ì AÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Ô€6ôÔIn€support€of€his€contentions,€the€defendant€cites€to€numerous€studies,€newspaper€articles,€lawÏreview€articles,€and€journals.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record,€however,€with€respect€to€any€of€hisÏcontentions.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€23.Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Ô€6ôÔWe€note,€however,€that€in€òòState€v.€Branamóó,€855€S.W.2d€563€(Tenn.€1993),€the€supreme€courtÏfound€the€death€penalty€to€be€disproportionate€and€reduced€the€defendant's€sentence€to€life.€€òòIdóó.€at€570„71.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€5ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ ° ÑÓ` °‚X˜XÓÑ7€gàXXdædÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€9<8A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àDECEMBER€SESSION,€1993ÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9303„CR„00065Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,à àà à)à àHamilton€CountyÌà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àÌv.à àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Stephen€M.€Bevil,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà à)ÌLEROY€HALL,€JR.,à àà àà à)à à(First€degree€murder€and€aggravated€arson)Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)à à€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€appelleeóó:ÌÌKarla€G.€Gothardà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ701€Cherry€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌSuite€300à àà àà àà àà àà àand€ÌChattanooga,€TN€37402à àà àà àJoel€W.€PerryÌ(At€trial€only)à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌWilliam€R.€Heckà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ì212€James€BuildingÌChattanooga,€TN€€37402à àà àà àWilliam€H.€CoxÌ(At€trial€and€on€appeal)à àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌBrock€Mehlerà àà àà àà àThomas€J.€Evansà àÌCapital€Case€Resource€Centerà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌ704€18th€Avenue€Southà àà àà à600€Market€Street,€Suite€310ÌNashville,€TN€37920à àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402Ì(On€appeal€only)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌò òòòÌÌÌÌà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€defendant,€Leroy€Hall,€Jr.,€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€andÏaggravated€arson.€€The€jury€imposed€the€death€penalty,€finding€the€existence€of€twoÏaggravating€circumstances:€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)× ƒ= ××  ×€and€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„13„204(i)(7)Ï(1991).× ƒ> ××  ×›€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€twenty„five„year€sentence€for€aggravated€arson,€aÏclass€A€felony,€to€be€served€consecutively.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right€directed€solely€atÏthe€murder€conviction€and€sentence,€the€defendant€raises€the€following€issues€relativeÏto€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à(1)€€whether€there€was€sufficient€evidence€of€premeditationÏand€deliberation€to€support€the€conviction€for€first€degreeÏmurder,ÌÌà8 à(2)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€prosecutionÏto€introduce€evidence€of€the€defendant's€prior€bad€acts,ÌÌà8 à(3)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€prosecutionÏto€introduce€certain€autopsy€photographs€of€the€victim,ÌÌà8 à(4)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€"misleading€andÏspeculative"€testimony€regarding€the€manner€in€which€theÏoffense€occurred,ÌÌà8 à(5)€€whether€he€was€denied€the€opportunity€to€presentÏevidence€of€his€diminished€capacity,€andÌÌà8 à(6)€€whether€the€trial€court€gave€incorrect€instructions€to€theÏjury€relative€to€the€elements€of€premeditation€andÏdeliberation.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌà àWith€regard€to€the€penalty€phase€of€the€proceedings,€the€defendantÏmakes€myriad€attacks€on€the€constitutionality€of€the€death€penalty,€the€TennesseeÏdeath€penalty€statute,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204€(1991),€and€the€sentence€and€statute€asÏapplied€in€his€case.€€Also,€he€raises€the€following€issues:€ÌÓÓà8 à(7)€whether€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance,ÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(7)€(1991),€was€unconstitutionallyÏapplied€in€this€case,ÌÌà8 à(8)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€requiring€disclosure€of€aÏreport€which€the€defendant€claimed€was€privileged€andÏattorney€work€product,ÌÌà8 à(9)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€prosecutionÏto€cross„examine€a€defense€expert€witness€about€certainÏ"bad€acts"€committed€by€the€defendant€as€a€child,ÌÌà8 à(10)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€with€regard€to€itsÏinstructions€on€the€mitigating€circumstances€in€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(2)× ƒ@ ××  ×€and€„204(j)(8),× ƒB ××  ×ÌÌà8 à(11)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€instruct€theÏjury€relative€to€œnonstatutory›€mitigating€circumstancesÏspecifically€requested€by€the€defense,€ÌÌà8 à(12)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€certainÏevidence€the€defense€argued€was€œmitigating,›€andÌÌà8 à(13)€whether€the€death€penalty€is€constitutionallyÏdisproportionate€in€this€case.ÌÌÓÓà@ àò òÌà@ àGUILT€PHASE€EVIDENCEó óÌà àThe€defendant€and€the€victim,€Tracy€Crozier,€had€lived€together€fromÏ1986€until€their€separation€in€late€March€or€early€April€œ1991.›€€In€the€early€morningÏhours€of€April€17,€1991,€the€defendant€threw€gasoline€on€the€victim€as€she€sat€in€herÏcar,€setting€fire€to€both.€€The€victim€received€third€degree€burns€to€more€than€ninetyÏpercent€of€her€body€and€died€several€hours€later€in€the€hospital.€€In€addition€to€theÍevidence€pertaining€to€the€April€17th€offenses,€several€witnesses€testified€that€theÏdefendant€had€previously€set€two€other€fires€to€the€victim's€vehicle.× ƒD ××  ×à àà àà à€ÌÌà àThe€victim's€grandmother,€Gloria€Mathis,€testified€that€the€victim€left€theÏdefendant€and€moved€in€with€her€about€three€weeks€before€the€offense.€€Even€after€theÏseparation,€the€defendant€would€frequently€call€the€Mathis€home,€often€late€at€night.€ÏOn€the€night€of€April€6,€1991,€Ms.€Mathis€was€awakened€by€a€fire€outside€her€home.€ÏWhen€she€looked€outside,€she€saw€that€the€victim's€car,€a€four„door€Toyota,€wasÏburning.€€She€called€the€fire€department.ÌÌà àChris€Mathis,€the€victim's€uncle,€also€witnessed€the€April€6th€incident.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€saw€the€defendant€approach€the€victim's€car€just€before€it€"blazed€up."€€ÏHe€said€that€the€defendant€later€told€him€on€several€occasions:€"If€I€can't€have€her,Ïnobody€can't€[sic]."€€Mathis€admitted€that€he€fired€a€gunshot€into€the€air€when€he€sawÏthe€defendant€at€the€scene.€€He€also€admitted€that€he€had€threatened€the€defendant€ifÏthe€defendant€failed€to€leave€the€victim€alone.ÌÌà àOn€the€night€of€April€16,€1991,€Viola€Wylene€Price€was€sitting€in€her€carÏoutside€her€home€when€she€saw€"a€ball€of€fire"€in€the€middle€of€the€street.€€She€startedÍto€get€out€of€her€car€but€stopped€when€she€saw€a€black€car,€later€identified€as€beingÏsimilar€to€the€defendant's,€approaching€at€a€high€rate€of€speed.€€After€the€car€passed,ÏPrice€entered€her€house€and€called€9„1„1.€€She€then€went€to€the€scene€where€her€son,ÏBilly€Ray€Wilson,€was€helping€the€victim€cross€the€street.€€Ms.€Price€testified€that€theÏvictim€had€been€completely€burned€and€that€her€head,€hair€and€skin€were€melted.€€TheÏvictim€was€able€to€tell€Price€her€name€and€telephone€number€and€the€victim€identifiedÏthe€defendant€when€Price€asked€who€did€this€to€her.ÌÌà àBilly€Ray€Wilson€testified€that€when€he€approached€the€scene,€he€sawÏthat€a€car€was€on€fire€and€he€heard€someone€in€the€car€screaming€for€help.€€Wilson€ranÏto€the€driver's€side€of€the€car,€which€was€open,€but€he€could€not€see€anyone€becauseÏof€the€flames.€€He€went€around€to€the€passenger's€side€where€he€was€able€to€pull€theÏvictim€from€the€car.€€Wilson€moved€the€victim€away€from€the€car€and€tried€to€remove€herÏburning€clothes.€€In€response€to€Wilson's€questions,€the€victim€referred€to€theÏdefendant€and€said€"he€threw€gas€on€me,€gas€bomb."€€She€repeated:€"[I]t€was€gas,€gasÏbomb.€€He€set€me€on€fire."ÌÌà àThe€victim€was€taken€to€Erlanger€Hospital€where€she€was€examined€byÏDr.€Sonya€Merriman,€a€plastic€surgeon€and€burn€specialist.€€Dr.€Merriman€testified€thatÏthe€victim€was€awake€and€alert€despite€having€burns€to€over€ninety„five€percent€of€herÏbody.€€The€victim€told€Dr.€Merriman€that€"he€threw€gasoline€on€me€and€burned€me."€ÏThe€victim€was€given€intravenous€fluids€and€incisions€were€made€in€her€body€in€anÍattempt€to€allow€tissues€to€expand.€€Nonetheless,€the€victim's€condition€deteriorated.€ÏAccording€to€Dr.€Merriman,€the€victim€did€not€sleep€for€long€periods€of€time€or€loseÏconsciousness€until€just€before€her€death.€€In€Dr.€Merriman's€opinion,€the€consistencyÏand€uniformity€of€the€burns€were€indicative€of€a€dousing€of€flammable€material€and€notÏjust€a€splashing€or€splattering.à àà àÌÌà àLaw€enforcement€officers€investigated€the€cause€of€the€fire.€€Earl€Atchley,ÏCommander€of€the€Chattanooga€Fire€Department,€received€the€9„1„1€call€at€12:06€a.m.Ïon€April€17,€1991.€€When€he€arrived€at€the€scene€the€fire€was€"fully€involved"€and€theÏvictim€was€badly€burned€and€unrecognizable.€€Atchley€testified€that€the€victimÏrecognized€him€because€he€had€also€investigated€the€fire€of€April€6,€1991.€€AccordingÏto€Atchley,€the€victim€referred€to€the€earlier€fire€and€said€that€the€same€person€hadÏcommitted€the€act.€€Atchley€recovered€a€plastic€container€and€a€tupperware€lid€near€theÏvictim's€car.ÌÌà àEd€Forester,€an€investigator€with€the€Arson€Division€of€the€ChattanoogaÏPolice€Department,€examined€the€scenes€of€both€the€April€6th€and€April€17th€fires.€€AtÏthe€former,€Forester€discovered€that€an€accelerant€had€been€poured€around€theÏexterior€of€the€car€and€that€the€fenders€and€vinyl€bumpers€were€melted.€€There€was€aÏstrong€odor€of€alcohol€and€also€a€yellow€plastic€jug€found€at€the€scene.€€ForesterÏobtained€an€arrest€warrant€for€the€defendant€based€in€part€on€Chris€Mathis'€statements.Ïà àà àÌà àForester€testified€that€the€vehicle€burned€on€April€6th€was€the€sameÏvehicle€involved€in€the€April€17th€fire.€€The€most€severe€damage€to€the€car€was€on€theÏdriver's€side€where€the€metal€was€discolored,€the€roof€sagged,€and€the€seat€springsÏwere€weak€and€sagging.€€Whereas€the€glass€on€the€passenger's€side€was€fire€orÏcarbon€stained,€glass€found€on€the€driver's€side€had€no€such€markings.€€This,Ïaccording€to€Forester,€indicated€that€the€driver's€side€window€had€been€broken€outÏbefore€the€fire.€€A€melted€plastic€container€was€found€near€the€open€driver's€door€of€theÏvictim's€vehicle.€€The€victim's€shoes,€socks€and€remains€of€clothing€were€alsoÏrecovered€and€later€tested€positive€for€the€presence€of€gasoline.€€Car€keys€were€foundÏsome€thirty€feet€from€the€victim's€car.€€Forester€went€to€the€hospital€around€12:30€a.m.Ïbut€was€unable€to€interview€the€victim.€€The€victim's€skin€was€burned,€her€eyes€wereÏswollen€and€turned€backwards,€and€her€mouth€and€tongue€were€swollen€andÏprotruding.ÌÌà àMike€Donnelly,€an€arson€investigator€with€the€State€of€Tennessee€FireÏMarshall's€office,€examined€the€victim's€car€after€the€offense.€€He€found€evidence€ofÏthree€"separate€and€distinct"€fires€to€the€car.€€Like€Forester,€Donnelly€related€that€theÏmost€extensive€damage€was€to€the€driver's€side€of€the€car.€€Burn€patterns€emergedÏfrom€the€interior€of€the€vehicle€to€the€exterior.€€The€carpet,€interior€roof,€console,€andÏfloorboard€all€were€extensively€damaged€on€the€driver's€side€of€the€car.€€DonnellyÏtestified€that€he€also€examined€the€car€for€possible€alternative€sources€of€the€fire€andÏfound€that€the€electrical€system,€the€battery€and€the€fuel€system€were€all€intact.ÌÌà àDonnelly€opined€that€the€fire€had€been€started€on€the€driver's€side€of€theÏvehicle,€both€front€and€rear€seat€areas.€€These€areas€had€suffered€the€greatest€amountÏof€damage€and€were€where€the€greatest€amount€of€combustibles€had€been€consumed.€ÏDonnelly€testified€that€gasoline,€which€had€been€carried€in€a€plastic€containerÏrecovered€from€the€scene,€had€been€applied€to€the€driver's€side€of€the€vehicle€as€anÏaccelerant.€€Donnelly€also€testified€that,€based€on€his€examination€of€the€car€and€hisÏviewing€of€photographs€of€the€victim's€burns,€the€gasoline€had€been€poured€directlyÏonto€the€victim.€€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant's€proof€during€the€guilt€phase€of€the€proceedingsÏconsisted€of€the€testimony€of€Morris€Forester,€Jeffery€Scott€Green€and€the€defendant.€ÏForester€and€Green€were€drinking€with€the€defendant€on€the€evening€of€April€16,€1991.€ÏAccording€to€Forester€and€Green,€the€trio€had€consumed€about€two€and€one„half€casesÏof€beer€and€the€defendant€was€intoxicated.€€While€Forester€believed€that€the€defendantÏleft€his€house€that€night€around€10:00€p.m.,€Green€recalled€seeing€the€defendantÏbetween€10:30€p.m.€and€11:00€p.m.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€and€the€victim€began€living€together€inÏJanuary€of€1986€when€he€was€eighteen€and€she€was€sixteen.€€The€victim€left€in€March€Ï1991€to€live€with€her€grandmother.€€However,€according€to€the€defendant,€theyÍcontinued€to€see€one€another€after€the€separation.€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€hadÏbeen€drinking€and€smoking€crack€cocaine€since€his€separation€from€the€victim.ÌÌà àOn€the€night€of€April€16th,€he€and€Jeffery€Scott€Green€went€to€MorrisÏForester's€home€and€drank€beer.€€At€one€point,€the€defendant€went€home€to€shower.€ÏThereafter,€he€obtained€a€hammer€at€a€pawn€shop€and,€after€seeing€the€victim's€carÏnear€her€grandmother's€house,€tried€to€call€the€victim€several€times.€€He€then€returnedÏto€Forester's€about€6:30€p.m.€or€7:00€p.m.€and€resumed€drinking.€€Ìà àÌà àAfter€consuming€approximately€one€case€of€beer,€the€defendant€again€leftÏForester's.€€He€took€five€beers€with€him€and€also€stopped€to€purchase€a€six€pack€ofÏbeer.€€According€to€the€defendant,€he€was€angry€because€he€felt€that€the€victim€hadÏlied€to€him.€€He€drove€to€his€trailer€and€tore€up€certain€possessions€that€belonged€to€theÏvictim.€€He€said€that€he€obtained€a€two„quart€tea€jug€and€that€he€intended€to€locate€theÏvictim€in€order€to€burn€her€car.€€He€went€to€the€victim's€work€place€and€herÏgrandmother's€house,€but€was€unable€to€find€her€at€either€location.€€The€defendantÏtestified€that€as€he€drove€by€the€victim's€grandmother's€home,€he€was€threatened€byÏChris€Mathis€and€a€second€man€whom€he€did€not€know.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€proceeded€to€drive€through€the€parking€lots€of€severalÏbars€and€nightclubs€looking€for€the€victim's€car.€€The€defendant€admitted€purchasingÏgasoline€and€a€cigarette€lighter€at€a€Conoco€station€and€putting€gasoline€in€the€car€andÍin€the€tea€jug.€€He€took€paper€towels€from€a€dispenser€near€the€gas€pumps€and€putÏthem€in€the€opening€of€the€tea€jug,€which€he€then€placed€in€his€car.€€He€returned€to€theÏarea€near€the€victim's€grandmother's€house.€€He€then€indicated€that€he€had€the€gas€forÏprotection€against€Chris€Mathis€and€the€second€man.ÌÌà àAs€the€defendant€was€about€to€leave,€the€victim€pulled€up€in€her€car.€ÏAccording€to€his€testimony,€the€defendant€entered€the€victim's€car€on€the€driver's€sideÏand€told€her€that€he€wanted€her€to€move€back€in€with€him.€€He€told€her€that€he€wasÏdrunk€and€that€he€needed€her.€€The€defendant€asked€the€victim€whether€she€wasÏpregnant€and€told€her€that€she€could€not€get€an€abortion.€€The€defendant€also€askedÏthe€victim€why€he€had€been€blamed€for€the€earlier€burnings€of€her€car.€€An€argumentÏensued€and€the€victim€called€the€defendant€a€"crazy€S.O.B."€€She€also€told€him€that€heÏneeded€to€turn€himself€in.ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€defendant,€he€exited€the€victim's€vehicle€and€told€her€toÏget€out€because€he€was€going€to€burn€the€car.€€She€tried€to€lock€the€door€but€theÏdefendant€reached€in,€grabbed€the€keys€and€threw€them€toward€his€car.€€TheÏdefendant€testified€that€he€again€told€the€victim€to€get€out€of€the€car€but€she€did€not€doÏso.€€The€defendant€then€ran€to€his€car€where€he€grabbed€the€gasoline„filled€jug.€€He€litÏthe€paper€towels€in€the€jug€with€his€lighter€and€threw€the€jug€into€the€driver's€side€of€theÏcar.€€He€testified€that€he€was€aware€that€the€victim€was€in€the€front€seat€crying€but€thatÏhe€threw€the€jug€anyway.ÌÌà àAfter€he€threw€the€gasoline€jug,€the€victim€got€out€of€the€car€and€ranÏtoward€the€defendant,€catching€him€on€fire.€€She€ran€to€the€passenger's€side€of€the€car,Ïaccording€to€the€defendant,€and€began€rolling€on€the€ground.€€The€defendant€then€leftÏthe€scene,€not€knowing€what€to€do.€€Although€flames€were€rolling€out€the€driver's€sideÏof€the€victim's€car,€the€defendant€thought€that€the€fire€on€the€victim€had€beenÏextinguished.€€Two€or€three€minutes€later,€the€defendant€returned€to€the€scene€but€didÏnot€see€the€victim.€€He€fled€because€something€ran€toward€him.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€the€defendant€denied€pouring€gasoline€onto€theÏvictim,€claiming€that€it€splattered.€€He€also€denied€breaking€the€glass€on€the€driver'sÏside€door,€insisting€that€the€door€had€been€open.€€He€testified€that€he€told€the€victim€toÏget€out€of€the€car€three€times€and€that€he€did€not€intend€to€kill€the€victim,€but€rather,€toÏburn€her€car.€€The€defendant€admitted€that€he€initially€denied€the€offense€whenÏquestioned€by€police.€€He€also€told€police€that€he€made€the€gas€jug€for€protection,€butÏthen€threw€it€at€the€victim€because€she€was€laughing€at€him.€€ÌÌà@ àò òPENALTY€PHASE€EVIDENCEÌó óà àDetective€Ed€Forester€was€recalled€to€testify€during€the€sentencingÏphase.€€He€testified€that,€in€addition€to€the€April€17,€1991€offenses,€he€investigated€firesÏthat€had€been€set€to€the€victim's€car€on€April€1,€1991€and€April€6,€1991.€€ForesterÏobtained€warrants€for€the€defendant's€arrest€relative€to€the€first€two€fires€andÍquestioned€the€defendant€about€the€April€17th€offenses.€€Although€the€defendant€wasÏaware€that€he€was€a€suspect€in€the€April€1st€and€April€6th€incidents,€he€initially€deniedÏcommitting€the€April€17th€offenses.× ƒG ××  ×ÌÌà àForester€also€testified€that€he€had€obtained€a€statement€from€the€victimÏfollowing€the€April€6th€fire.€€The€victim,€who€was€not€an€eyewitness€to€either€the€AprilÏ1st€or€April€6th€offenses,€told€Forester€that€the€defendant€had€previously€threatened€toÏkill€her€and€to€"total"€her€car.€€On€one€occasion,€according€to€the€victim,€the€defendantÏtried€to€run€her€off€the€road.ÌÌà àThe€defense€proof€during€sentencing€included€the€testimony€of€Dr.€RogerÏMeyer,€a€clinical€psychologist.€€Dr.€Meyer€evaluated€the€defendant€after€the€offense€byÏgathering€basic€information€and€performing€a€series€of€tests.€€Dr.€Meyer€ultimatelyÏconcluded€that€the€defendant€exhibited€characteristics€associated€with€a€borderlineÏpersonality€disorder€and€a€post„traumatic€stress€disorder.ÌÌà àDr.€Meyer€related€the€type,€nature€and€results€of€the€numerous€tests€heÏadministered€to€the€defendant.€€A€mental€status€examination€revealed€that€theÍdefendant€was€not€insane€or€psychotic.€€A€Slosson€Intelligence€test€indicated€that€theÏdefendant's€IQ€was€eighty„seven,€and€that€his€mental€age€was€thirteen€years,€elevenÏmonths.€€The€defendant's€basic€skills€as€measured€by€a€Wide€Range€Achievement€testÏshowed€his€level€of€education€in€general€areas€to€reflect€grades€six€to€nine.€€However,Ïa€neuropsychological€examination€revealed€no€evidence€of€significant€neurologicalÏtrauma.ÌÌà àDr.€Meyer's€findings€also€embraced€a€number€of€personality€traits.€€AÏsixteen„factor€personality€test€showed€that€the€defendant€is€extremely€introverted,Ïemotionally€unstable,€easily€led€and€has€low€self„esteem.€€According€to€Dr.€Meyer,€theÏtest€also€reflected€that€the€defendant€has€little€self„control€and€is€not€rule€abiding€orÏmoralistic.€€Dr.€Meyer€also€testified€that€the€defendant€has€severe€emotional€problems,Ïdissociative€experiences€revealing€traits€of€post„traumatic€stress€and€a€borderlineÏpersonality€disorder.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€is€not€a€psychopath€or€sociopath.€€ÏHowever,€he€has€problems€controlling€rage€and€anger€and,€in€Dr.€Meyer's€opinion,Ïwas€involved€in€an€"emotional€tug€of€war"€with€the€victim.€€He€testified€that€the€testÏresults€indicated€some€evidence€that€the€defendant€may€be€"faking€bad"€orÏmalingering.€€He€explained€that€the€results€do€not€necessarily€mean€that€a€patient€isÏfaking€but€could€just€reflect€that€the€patient€is€overemphasizing€the€stress€andÏemotional€problems€he€is€experiencing.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Meyer€testified€that€the€defendant€is€notÏmentally€retarded.€€He€acknowledged€that€one€of€his€reports€reflected€the€defendant'sÏIQ€as€seventy„eight,€instead€of€eighty„seven,€but€explained€that€the€discrepancy€was€aÏtypographical€error.€€Dr.€Meyer€testified€that,€notwithstanding€this€error,€the€educationalÏand€personality€findings€he€had€related€would€be€valid€even€if€the€intelligenceÏevaluations€may€have€been€affected.€€ÌÌà àDr.€Meyer€œrestated›€his€opinions€that€the€defendant€exhibited€signs€€oftenÏassociated€with€borderline€personality€disorders€and€post„traumatic€stress€disordersÏand€that€the€defendant€committed€the€offenses€under€extreme€emotional€distress.€ÏHowever,€when€questioned€about€specific€childhood€behavior€of€the€defendant,€Dr.ÏMeyer€conceded€that€the€defendant€has€exhibited€many€traits€consistent€with€anÏantisocial€personality€disorder.€€The€behavior€included€the€defendant's€burning€of€hisÏown€bed€in€1972,€the€setting€of€a€fire€to€his€mother's€boyfriend's€car€seat€in€1973€andÏthe€setting€of€a€fire€to€a€wooded€area€in€1975.€€Other€acts€committed€by€the€defendantÏand€acknowledged€by€Dr.€Meyer€included€truancy,€driving€under€the€influence,€fightingÏand€sneaking€up€on€the€defendant's€mother€with€a€knife.× ƒH ××  ×€€€ÌÌà àThe€defense€also€presented€evidence€relative€to€the€defendant'sÏrelationship€with€the€victim,€as€well€as€the€defendant's€abuse€of€drugs€and€alcohol.€ÏJeffery€Scott€Green,€for€instance,€testified€that€the€relationship€between€the€victim€andÏdefendant€was€a€"rocky"€one€and€that€the€defendant€abused€alcohol,€marijuana€andÏcrack€cocaine.€€Christie€Griffin,€the€defendant's€step„sister,€testified€that€the€defendantÏwould€get€sad€when€he€fought€with€the€victim€but€that€he€believed€they€would€work€outÏtheir€problems.€€David€Hall,€the€defendant's€brother,€testified€that€the€defendant€andÏthe€victim€fought€about€once€a€week.€€According€to€Hall,€the€victim€would€often€addressÏthe€defendant€in€abusive€and€cursing€language.€€Hall€also€related€that€the€defendantÏwas€abusing€crack€and€had€asked€to€borrow€money.ÌÌà àThe€defendant's€mother,€Sarah€Griffin,€testified€that€the€family€movedÏseveral€times€when€the€defendant€was€young.€€From€ages€fourteen€to€seventeen,€theÏdefendant€resided€with€another€family€while€his€family€moved€to€Alabama.€€TheÏdefendant€and€the€victim€had€been€happy€together€the€first€three€or€four€years€of€theirÏrelationship,€according€to€Ms.€Griffin,€but€they€started€to€have€problems€during€the€pastÏtwo€years.€€The€couple€separated€and€reconciled€on€several€occasions.€€Ms.€GriffinÏtestified€that€in€December€of€1990,€the€defendant€moved€to€Oklahoma€where€heÏplanned€to€find€work.€€He€returned€after€only€a€few€days€to€reconcile€with€the€victim.€ÏShe€also€testified€that€during€the€most€recent€separation€in€œMarch›€1991,€the€defendantÏwas€very€upset€and€would€cry€and€drink€alcohol€excessively.€€The€defendant,Ïaccording€to€his€mother,€was€a€"basket€case"€when€he€did€not€see€the€victim.ÌÌà àThe€defense€introduced€medical€records€showing€that€the€victim€hadÏreceived€two€abortions€in€1985€and€one€abortion€in€1990.€€The€prosecution,€in€rebuttal,Ïpresented€a€witness€who€related€that€the€defendant€was€aware€of€one€of€the€abortionsÏin€question€and€had€encouraged€the€victim€to€have€it€done.Ì̜Ǜà@ àò òGUILT€PHASE€ISSUESó óà àà àÌà@ àò ò(1)ó óÌà àThe€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidenceÏrelative€to€first€degree€murder€and€argues€that€there€was€no€evidence€that€he€actedÏwith€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€He€asserts€that€the€proof€shows€a€crimeÏcommitted€by€an€emotionally€and€mentally€disturbed€man€in€the€midst€of€a€tumultuousÏpersonal€relationship.€€The€state€responds€that€there€was€sufficient€evidence€ofÏpremeditation€and€deliberation.× ƒI ××  ×ÌÌà àWhen€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€standard€forÏreview€is€whether,€after€considering€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,Ï2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€œ1985).›€€A€conviction€that€isÏapproved€by€the€trial€court€accredits€the€testimony€which€favors€the€state€and€resolvesÏall€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state's€theory.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410Ï(Tenn.€œ1983).›ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€the€offenses,€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„13„202(a)(1)€(1991)›€provided€thatÏthe€"intentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing€of€another"€is€first€degree€murder.œ× ƒK ××  ×›€ÏA€premeditated€act€is€"one€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment."€€T.C.A.Ïðð€œ39„13„201(b)(2)€(1991).›€€A€deliberate€act€is€"one€performed€with€a€cool€purpose."ÏT.C.A.€€ðð€œ39„13„201(b)(1)€(1991).›€€As€is€usually€the€case,€a€determination€of€culpableÏmental€states,€such€as€premeditation€and€deliberation,€must€be€inferentially€made€fromÏthe€circumstances€surrounding€the€killing.€€òòBass€v.€Stateóó,€191€Tenn.€259,€231€S.W.2dÏœ707,€711›€(1950);€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€506€S.W.2d€175,€178€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).ÌÌà àOur€supreme€court€has€discussed€the€then€existing€elements€of€firstÏdegree€murder€in€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992)€and€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844ÏS.W.2d€144€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€òòBrownóó,€the€supreme€court€acknowledged€that€theÏTennessee€courts€had€often€commingled€the€elements€of€premeditation€andÏdeliberation.€€The€court€relied€upon€the€following€historical€definitions:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à"Premeditation"€is€the€process€simply€of€thinking€about€aÏproposed€killing€before€engaging€in€the€homicidal€conduct;Ïand€òòòò"óódeliberation"€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.€€"Deliberation"€is€present€if€theÏthinking,€i.e.,€the€"premeditation,"€is€being€done€in€such€aÏcool€mental€state,€under€such€circumstances,€and€for€such€aÍperiod€of€time€as€to€permit€a€"careful€weighing"€of€theÏproposedòò€óódecision.óóÌÌÓÓòòÓ  ÓBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€540„41€(quoting€C.€Torcia,€òòWharton's€Criminal€œLawóó€ðð140›€(14thÏed.€1979)€(emphasis€in€œoriginal));›€œòòseeóó›€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).Ì€Ìà àAccordingly,€premeditation€requires€evidence€of€a€"previously€formedÏdesign€or€intent€to€kill,"€and€deliberation€requires€œsome›€period€of€reflection,€duringÏwhich€the€mind€is€free€from€the€influence€of€excitement€or€œpassion.›€€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2dÏat€œ147;€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€540.›€€Moreover,€to€insure€that€the€elements€would€beÏconsidered€separately,€the€court€in€òòBrownóó€deemed€it€prudent€to€abandon€a€commonlyÏgiven€instruction€that€premeditation€could€be€"formed€in€an€instant."€€òòBrownóó,€836ÏS.W.2d€at€543.€€In€this€regard,€our€court,€in€òòGentryóó,€considered€the€nature€of€proof€fromÏwhich€a€jury€might€rationally€infer€the€elements€of€first€degree€murder:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à(1)€facts€about€how€and€what€the€defendant€did€prior€to€theÏactual€killing€which€show€he€was€engaged€in€activityÏdirected€toward€the€killing,€that€is,€òòplanning€activityóó;ÌÌà8 à(2)€facts€about€the€defendant's€prior€relationship€andÏconduct€with€the€victim€from€which€òòmotiveóó€may€be€inferred;ÏandÌÌà8 à(3)€facts€about€the€òònature€of€the€killingóó€from€which€it€may€beÏinferred€that€the€manner€of€killing€was€so€particular€andÏexacting€that€the€defendant€must€have€intentionally€œkilledÏaccording€to€a›€preconceived€design.ÌÌÓÓÓ  Ó881€S.W.2d€at€4„5€œ(quoting›€2€W.€LaFave€and€A.€Scott,€òòSubstantive€Criminal€œLawóó›€ðð€7.7Ï(1986)€(emphasis€in€œoriginal).›ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that,€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€theÏevidence€was€sufficient€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€conclude€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€that€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€a€premeditated€and€deliberated€first€degreeÏmurder.€€There€was€evidence€that€the€defendant€and€the€victim€had€a€troubledÏrelationship€and€were€in€the€midst€of€a€separation.€€The€defendant,€according€to€oneÏwitness,€had€made€threats€toward€the€victim,€including€telling€Chris€Mathis€to€the€effectÏthat€no€one€could€have€her€if€he€could€not.€€The€defendant€admitted€that,€on€the€night€ofÏthe€killing,€he€was€angry€because€he€felt€that€the€victim€had€lied€to€him.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant's€testimony€included€his€procurement€of€materials€used€toÏcommit€the€offense.€€He€located€a€tea€jug€to€fill€with€gasoline€in€order€to€burn€theÏvictim's€car€and€he€set€out€to€find€the€victim.€€He€related€how€he€went€to€a€gas€station,Ïfilled€the€jug€with€gasoline,€purchased€a€cigarette€lighter€and€put€paper€towels€in€theÏopening€of€€the€jug.€€Also,€the€defendant's€testimony€clearly€recounted€his€actions€inÏsearching€for€the€victim.€€He€went€to€the€victim's€place€of€employment€and€to€herÏgrandmother's€house.€€He€drove€through€the€parking€lots€of€numerous€bars€andÏnightclubs€in€his€effort€to€find€the€victim.€€His€testimony€included€the€names€of€eachÏestablishment,€the€roads€he€traveled€and€his€actions.€€Notwithstanding€the€defendant'sÍtestimony€that€he€only€intended€to€burn€the€victim's€car,€a€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÏinfer€planning€activity€from€such€evidence.ÌÌà àWhen€finally€locating€the€victim,€he€told€her€that€he€was€going€to€burn€herÏcar,€but€he€prevented€her€from€leaving€the€scene€or€locking€herself€inside€the€car€byÏtaking€her€car€keys.€€According€to€the€defendant's€own€testimony,€an€argument€ensuedÏand€he€returned€to€his€car€to€retrieve€the€gasoline€jug.€€The€defendant€further€admittedÏthat€he€was€aware€the€victim€was€lying€prone€on€the€front€seat€when€he€lit€the€gasolineÏjug€and€threw€it€into€the€car.€€The€defendant€fled€the€scene€and€later€denied€to€policeÏthat€he€committed€the€offense.€€ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€this€evidence€was€sufficient€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€toÏfind€the€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€TheÏdefendant's€contentions€that€his€actions€were€indicative€of€anger,€passion€and€anÏintent€to€burn€the€victim's€car€are€unavailing.€€The€jury€heard€the€defendant's€testimonyÏin€this€regard€and€could€rationally€conclude€that€his€actions€were€consistent€with€anÏintent€to€kill€and€deliberation.€€Moreover,€although€the€defendant€testified€that€he€hadÏbeen€drinking€on€the€night€in€question,€he€recounted€his€actions€and€whereabouts€withÏclarity€and€detail.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€attacks€certain€aspects€of€the€state's€proof€that€purportedlyÏdemonstrate€the€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€and€offers€otherÍinferences€that€could€have€been€drawn.€€For€instance,€he€argues€that€the€evidenceÏregarding€the€extent€of€the€victim's€injuries€did€not€by€itself€establish€premeditation.€ÏòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€546.€€He€contends€that€the€opinion€testimony€relativeÏto€the€"pouring"€of€gasoline€on€the€victim€was€speculative€and€inadmissible,€and,€inÏany€event,€not€probative€of€the€elements€of€the€offense.€€He€contends€that€the€inferenceÏthat€he€broke€the€driver's€side€window€of€the€victim's€car€before€setting€it€ablazeÏconflicted€with€testimony€that€the€driver's€door€was€open€and€that,€in€any€event,€suchÏevidence€would€indicate€anger,€not€deliberation.€€The€defendant€further€argues€thatÏevidence€relative€to€his€prior€threats€against€the€victim€must€be€viewed€in€contrast€toÏthe€evidence€that€he€and€the€victim€continued€to€have€contact€with€one€another€afterÏtheir€separation.€€Finally,€he€argues€that€evidence€that€he€procured€the€materials€withÏwhich€to€make€the€bomb€was€not€probative€of€premeditation,€but€rather€could€haveÏbeen€done€in€a€state€of€passion.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€148.ÌÌà àEssentially,€the€defendant's€contentions€require€a€reweighing€of€theÏevidence,€something€this€court€may€not€do.€€That€is,€it€is€of€no€consequence€that€Ïalternative€inferences€might€exist€depending€upon€what€view€of€the€evidence€is€made,Ïbecause€our€review€is€limited€to€whether€or€not€the€jury's€guilty€verdict€is€rationallyÏsupported€by€the€evidence€when€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state.€€UnderÏsuch€a€review,€we€conclude€that€the€circumstances€of€the€killing€and€the€inferencesÏthat€can€be€rationally€drawn€from€the€evidence€by€the€jury€are€sufficient€to€sustain€theÍfirst€degree€murder€conviction.€€T.R.A.P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€at€318,€99ÏS.€Ct.€at€2789.€€ÌÌà@ àò ò(2)Ìà àó óThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€evidenceÏabout€the€previous€fires€set€to€the€victim's€car€on€April€1,€1991€and€April€6,€1991.ò ò€€ó óHeÏargues€that€said€evidence€was€not€relevant€to€a€material€trial€issue€and€it€wasÏimproperly€used€to€prove€that€he€committed€the€offensesò ò€ó óon€April€17,€1991.€€The€stateÏinsists€that€the€trial€court's€rulings€with€respect€to€evidence€of€the€earlier€fires€wereÏcorrect.ÌÌà àTestimony€regarding€fires€to€the€victim's€car€on€April€1st€and€April€œ6th›Ï1991€was€elicited€through€several€witnesses.€€Gloria€Mathis,€the€victim's€grandmother,Ïtestified€that€the€defendant€had€burned€the€victim's€car€twice€before€the€offenses€inÏquestion.€€The€defendant€objected€based€upon€a€lack€of€proof€that€the€defendantÏcommitted€either€fire.€€The€defendant€requested€that€Ms.€Mathisðð€statement€be€strickenÏfrom€the€record€and€that€a€curative€instruction€be€issued€or€that€the€trial€court€grant€aÏmistrial.€€The€prosecution€contended€that€the€evidence€of€the€earlier€fires€was€intendedÏto€show€the€victim's€state€of€mind€and€to€show€a€"pattern€of€conduct€by€the€defendant"Ïthrough€the€similarity€of€the€offenses.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€ruled€that€it€would€allow€testimony€only€about€priorÏburnings€that€related€to€the€defendant.€€The€state€assured€the€court€that€it€wouldÏpresent€a€witness€who€would€testify€that€the€defendant€had€set€the€April€6th€fire.€€TheÏtrial€court€overruled€the€defendantððs€objection€relative€to€any€evidence€of€prior€fires€ð ðonÏthe€stipulation€that€if€[the€defendantððs€involvement€is]€disproven,€[it€would]€sustain€theÏmotion€for€a€mistrial.ðð€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€defendantððs€objection€to€Ms.€MathisððÏstatement€and€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€the€witness'€statement€that€the€car€hadÏbeen€burned€"twice€before."€ÌÌà à€Ms.€Mathis€was€then€questioned€about€the€April€6th€fire€but€did€notÏimplicate€the€defendant€as€the€person€who€had€caused€the€fire.€€The€trial€courtÏinstructed€the€jury€that€Ms.€Mathisðð€testimony€relative€to€the€April€6th€fire€was€beingÏadmitted€contingent€upon€it€being€made€relevant€at€a€later€time.€€Her€son,€Chris€Mathis,Ïwas€later€permitted€to€relate€facts€regarding€the€April€6th€incident.€€In€fact,€it€was€ChrisÏMathis,€an€eyewitness,€who€connected€the€defendant€to€the€April€6th€fire.€€The€defense,Ïwho€had€earlier€noted€an€"ongoing€objection,"€did€not€contemporaneously€object€toÏChris€Mathis'€testimony.Ì€Ìà àBefore€the€testimony€of€Viola€Wylene€Price,€the€prosecution€advised€theÏcourt€that€Price€and€Commander€Earl€Atchley€of€the€Chattanooga€Fire€DepartmentÏwould€relate€statements€made€by€the€victim€on€the€scene€to€the€effect€that€theÏdefendant€had€burned€her€car€on€two€previous€occasions.€€The€prosecutor€argued€thatÍthe€evidence€was€relevant€to€the€victim's€state€of€mind,€insofar€as€she€knew€theÏdefendant's€prior€acts€and€therefore€would€not€have€associated€with€him€voluntarily.€ÏThe€defense€again€noted€that€such€evidence€of€prior€acts€would€lead€the€jury€toÏconclude€that€the€defendant€had€committed€the€acts€for€which€he€was€being€tried.€€ÌThe€trial€court€ruled€that€the€victim's€statements€were€admissible€as€"excitedÏutterances."€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(2).€€The€court€further€ruled€that€it€would€instructÏthe€jury€that€the€statements€were€admitted€to€show€the€victim's€existing€state€of€mindÏbut€not€"as€to€whether€there€were€in€fact€two€prior€fires€or€whether€there€weren't€twoÏprior€fires."€€ÌÌà à€Price€was€allowed€to€testify€that€the€victim€told€her€that€the€defendant€hadÏtried€to€set€fire€"to€her€twice€before."€€Likewise,€Atchley€testified€that€the€victim€said€thatÏthe€defendant€had€committed€the€offense€and€that€he€was€the€"same€guy€that€set€theÏautomobile€on€fire€on€the€6th."€€The€trial€court,€on€each€occasion,€instructed€the€juryÏthat€the€statements€were€"excited€utterances,"€and€not€offered€to€prove€the€defendantÏcommitted€the€prior€fires.ÌÌà àEd€Forester€and€Mike€Donnelly€testified€relative€to€the€prior€fires€in€theÏcourse€of€their€testimony€about€their€investigations.€€Before€Forester's€testimony,€theÏprosecution€informed€the€trial€court€that€the€witness€would€relate€his€findings€withÏregard€to€his€April€1st€and€April€6th€investigations.€€The€state€argued€that€the€evidenceÏwas€relevant€to€show€the€victim's€state€of€mind€with€regard€to€her€relationship€with€theÍdefendant€and€to€rebut€the€defendantððs€theory€that€the€victim€was€with€the€defendantÏwillingly€on€the€night€of€her€death.€€The€defense€objected€on€the€grounds€thatÏForesterððs€statement€that€the€victim€suspected€the€defendant€of€the€April€1st€fire€hadÏnothing€to€do€with€her€state€of€mind€and€that€there€had€been€no€evidence€connectingÏthe€defendant€to€the€April€1st€fire.€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€defendantððs€objectionÏrelative€to€evidence€of€the€April€1st€fire,€stating€that€it€was€too€remote€and€that€theÏvictimððs€mere€suspicion€of€the€defendant€for€the€April€1st€fire€was€not€enough€to€allowÏits€introduction.€€The€trial€court€also€ruled€that€Forester€could€testify€to€the€April€6th€fireÏbecause€there€had€been€proof€of€the€defendant's€involvement.€€The€court€further€notedÏthat€evidence€of€the€April€6th€fire€had€been€admitted€because€"it€was€relevant€andÏprobative€to€the€issue€of€premeditation€and€intent€of€the€defendant€when€he€.€.€.€set€theÏfire€on€April€the€17th,€.€.€.€since€there€was€proof€that€he€himself€actually€set€the€fire."ÌÌà àForester€then€testified€that€he€had€met€the€victim€on€April€1,€1991,€andÏthat€he€had€investigated€a€fire€to€the€victim's€car€on€April€6,€1991.€€He€related€theÏdetails€of€the€April€6th€fire.€€At€one€point€in€this€testimony,€he€refers€to€"both€previousÏfires."€€The€defendant€later€objected€out€of€the€presence€of€the€jury€but€stated€no€basisÏfor€the€objection.€€The€trial€court€stated€that€it€did€not€hear€the€reference€to€more€thanÏone€previous€fire€and€never€ruled€on€the€defendantððs€objection.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€.€€ÌÌà àDonnelly€testified€that€the€investigation€of€the€victim's€car€revealedÏevidence€of€"three€separate€and€distinct€fires."€€He€added€that€he€learned€fires€hadÍbeen€set€to€the€car€on€April€1st€and€April€6th,€in€addition€to€the€day€of€the€offensesÏbeing€tried.€€The€defense€objected€to€his€testimony€and€moved€for€a€mistrial€on€theÏbasis€of€the€cumulative€references€that€had€been€made€to€the€earlier€fires.€€The€trialÏcourt€denied€the€mistrial€motion€because€it€did€not€think€that€the€defendant€hadÏsuffered€any€prejudice.€€However,€the€trial€court€offered€a€curative€instruction€for€theÏjury€to€disregard€the€reference€to€the€April€1st€fire,€but€the€defendant€declined€theÏinstruction.ÌÌà àAs€the€defendant€correctly€notes,€evidence€that€an€accused€hasÏcommitted€some€other€crime€or€bad€act€independent€of€that€for€which€he€is€charged€isÏgenerally€inadmissible,€even€though€it€may€be€a€crime€or€act€of€the€same€character€asÏthat€on€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b);€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€254€(Tenn.€œ1993);›ÏœòòBunch›€v.€Stateóó,€605€S.W.2d€227,€229€(Tenn.€1980).€€However,€if€evidence€that€aÏdefendant€has€committed€a€crime€separate€and€apart€from€the€one€on€trial€is€relevantÏto€some€matter€actually€in€issue€in€the€case€on€trial€and€if€its€probative€value€is€notÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€its€prejudicial€effect,€the€evidence€may€be€admitted.€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b);€òòHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€254.€€Issues€to€which€such€evidence€mayÏbe€relevant€include€identity,€motive,€common€scheme€or€plan,€intent€or€the€rebuttal€ofÏaccident€or€mistake€defenses.€€In€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299,€301€(Tenn.€1985),Ïthe€supreme€court€stated€that€admissibility€was€also€contingent€upon€the€trial€courtÏfinding€clear€and€convincing€€evidence€that€the€prior€crime,€wrong€or€act€wasÍcommitted€by€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Holmanóó,€611€S.W.2d€411,€412„13Ï(Tenn.€1981).€€ÌÌà àAs€our€previous€recital€of€the€facts€indicates,€the€record€does€not€provideÏa€pattern€of€clear€cut€testimony,€objections€and€rulings€regarding€the€previous€fires.€ÏSometimes€the€defendant€objected€without€specifying€the€basis€of€the€objections,€oneÏtime€he€claimed€a€continuing€objection,€while€other€times€there€was€no€specificÏobjection€made.€€The€trial€court's€rulings€were,€similarly,€often€not€specific.€€In€thisÏrespect,€we€note€that€at€no€time€did€either€of€the€parties€refer€to€Rule€404(b)€or€requestÏa€jury„out€hearing€as€provided€by€Rule€404(b)€at€which€specific€rulings€upon€eachÏquestioned€proffer€of€evidence€could€be€made.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2dÏ797,€806€(Tenn.€1994).€€As€the€rule€indicates,€the€trial€court€was€not€obligated€toÏconduct€such€a€hearing€absent€a€request.€€In€any€event,€the€ultimate€result€is€that€thereÏis€no€record€of€a€trial€court€analysis€and€determination€regarding€issue€relevance€andÏpotential€prejudice.€€ÌÌà àNevertheless,€as€the€state€contends,€the€record€indicates€that€theÏevidence€of€the€previous€fires€is€relevant€to€the€defendant's€motive€and€intentÏregarding€his€conduct€for€which€he€is€now€being€tried.€€In€this€respect,€we€note€that€theÏtrial€court€stated€at€one€point€that€the€April€6th€fire€was€relevant€to€intent€andÏpremeditation.€€We€agree.€€In€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561€(Tenn.€œ1993),›€theÏdefendant€objected€to€the€introduction€of€evidence€that€he€committed€previous€assaultsÍagainst€his€estranged€wife,€one€of€the€murder€victims.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€theÏevidence€violated€Rule€404(b).€€The€supreme€court€stated:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àœà àIn›€response€to€the€Defendant's€assertions€that€theÏevidence€of€the€two€episodes€was€irrelevant€andÏinadmissible€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b),€the€State€cites€aÏline€of€cases,€òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Turnbillóó,€640€S.W.2d€40,€œ46„47›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€and€òòState€v.€Glebockóó,€616ÏS.W.2d€897,€905„906€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981),€which€holdÏthat€òòviolent€acts€indicating€the€relationship€between€theÏvictim€of€a€violent€crime€and€the€defendant€prior€to€theÏcommission€of€the€offense€are€relevant€to€œshow€›€defendant'sÏhostility€toward€the€victim,€malice,€intent,€and€a€settledÏpurpose€to€harm€the€victim.óó€€Also,€in€the€present€case,€theÏvictims,€despite€the€Defendant's€threats€to€kill€them€if€theyÏdid€so,€had€filed€charges€against€the€Defendant€based€onÏthese€prior€assaults.€€The€evidence€of€these€violentÏepisodes€was€admitted€not€to€prove€the€Defendant€acted€inÏaccord€with€œthis›€character€but€as€part€of€the€proofÏestablishing€his€motive€for€the€killings.€€The€probative€valueÏof€this€evidence€is€not€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice.ÌÌÓÓœòòÓ  ÓSmithóó,€868€S.W.2d€at›€574€(emphasis€œadded)€(citations€omitted).›€€We€believe€the€factsÏin€the€present€case€are€similar€to€those€in€òòSmithóó.€€The€defendant€committed€prior€actsÏof€arson€toward€the€victim€and€charges€were€brought.€€The€defendant€was€aware€of€theÏcharges.€€As€in€òòSmithóó,€these€facts€were€highly€probative€of€the€defendant's€motive€andÏintent.€€We€conclude€that€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€is€not€outweighed€by€theÏdanger€of€unfair€prejudice€and€was,€therefore,€admissible.€€ÌÌà@ àò ò(3)Ìà àó óThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€a€€€Ïphotograph€taken€of€the€victim€at€an€autopsy.€€He€argues€that€the€victim's€appearanceÏin€the€photograph€had€been€altered€by€medical€procedures€and€that€the€prosecution'sÏexpert€witness,€as€well€as€lay€witnesses,€were€able€to€describe€the€victim's€conditionÏwithout€the€use€of€photographs.€€The€state€contends€that€the€photograph€was€relevantÏto€show€the€nature€of€the€victim's€injuries€and€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÏdiscretion€in€this€regard.ÌÌà àThe€record€indicates€that€the€prosecution€sought€to€introduce€a€series€ofÏfour€photographs,€contending€that€they€accurately€depicted€the€consistency€of€theÏburns€received€by€the€victim.€€Dr.€Merriman€testified€that€the€photographs€would€bestÏillustrate€her€testimony,€although€she€conceded€that€she€could€describe€the€victim'sÏcondition,€including€her€charred,€hardened€and€discolored€skin,€without€them.€€Dr.ÏMerriman€also€admitted€that€the€photographs,€taken€at€the€autopsy,€did€not€reflect€theÏvictim's€condition€at€the€time€of€her€admittance€to€the€hospital.€€In€this€regard,€sheÏacknowledged€that€incisions€had€been€made€in€the€victim's€skin€and€that€fluidsÏprovided€to€the€victim€produced€a€swelling€to€her€body,€eyes,€lips€and€tongue.ÌÌà àNonetheless,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€one€of€the€photographs,€whichÏdepicted€the€victim's€back€as€she€lay€on€her€side,€was€admissible,€stating€that€it€wasÏrepresentative€of€all€the€burns€and€was€relevant€to€assist€the€jury€in€understanding€theÏseriousness€and€degree€of€the€burns.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€other€photographs,Íwhich€more€graphically€depicted€the€victim's€head,€torso,€face€and€extremities,€wereÏinadmissible€because€their€probative€value€was€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice.ÌÌà àThe€leading€case€regarding€the€admissibility€of€photographs€of€murderÏvictims€is€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947€(Tenn.€1978),€in€which€the€supreme€courtÏindicated€that€the€determination€of€admissibility€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€courtÏafter€considering€the€relevance,€probative€value€and€potential€unfair€prejudicial€effectÏof€such€evidence.€€The€general€rule,€as€stated€in€òòBanksóó,€is€that€"photographs€of€theÏcorpse€are€admissible€in€murder€prosecutions€if€they€are€relevant€to€the€issues€on€trial,Ïnotwithstanding€their€gruesome€and€horrifying€character."€€òòIdóó.€at€œ950„951›€(citingÏòòPeople€v.€Jenkoóó,€410€Ill.€478,€102€N.E.2d€783€(1951)).€€On€the€other€hand,€"if€they€areÏnot€relevant€to€prove€some€part€of€the€prosecution's€case,€they€may€not€be€admittedÏsolely€to€inflame€the€jury€and€prejudice€them€against€the€defendant."€€òòBanksóó,€564ÏS.W.2d€at€951€(citing€òòMilam€v.€Commonwealthóó,€275€S.W.2d€921€(Ky.€1955)).ÌÌà àThus,€even€relevant€evidence€should€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€isÏsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€€òòBanksóó,Ï564€S.W.2d€at€951;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€In€òòBanksóó,€the€court€stated€that€"[t]heÏmore€gruesome€the€photographs,€the€more€difficult€it€is€to€establish€that€their€probativeÏvalue€and€relevance€outweigh€their€prejudicial€effect."€€564€S.W.2d€at€œ951€(citationÏomitted).›€€Also,€it€noted€that€autopsy€photographs€are€often€condemned€"because€theyÍpresent€an€even€more€horrifying€sight€and€show€the€body€in€an€altered€condition.€.€.€."€ÏòòIdóó.œ× ƒL ××  ×›€€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€admitted€photograph€did€depict€the€victim€in€aÏdifferent€condition€due€to€the€treatment€procedures€that€had€been€administered.€€ThisÏfactor€weighs€against€admissibility.€€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€951.€€Likewise,€theÏtestimony€of€Dr.€Merriman€and€several€lay€witnesses€conveyed€the€graphic€andÏextensive€nature€of€the€victim's€burns€and€the€extent€of€her€injuries,€further€weighingÏagainst€the€admission€of€the€photograph.€€òòIdóó.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€trial€court€foundÏthat€the€photograph€was€relevant€to€"the€seriousness€and€the€degree€of€the€burns."€ÏThe€trial€court€ruled€that€the€photograph€showed€the€nature€of€the€injury€and€theÏconsistency€of€the€burns€received€by€the€victim.€€This,€in€turn,€was€relevant€to€anÏassessment€of€how€the€offense€was€committed€by€the€defendant.€€We€note€that€part€ofÏthe€prosecution's€theory,€as€related€by€Dr.€Merriman€and€Mike€Donnelly,€was€that€theÏvictim's€injuries€were€consistent€with€a€dousing€of€flammable€material,€and€not€just€aÏsplashing€or€splattering.€€In€this€regard,€the€evidence€was€relevant€to€the€manner€inÏwhich€the€offense€occurred€and€to€clarify€testimony€on€the€issue.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòBanksóó,€564ÏS.W.2d€at€951.€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòSmithóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€576€(trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÍdiscretion€in€allowing€autopsy€photograph€of€victim€during€guilt€phase€in€part€toÏillustrate€testimony);€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€536€(Tenn.€œ1993).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€excluded€several€other€photographs€that€were€moreÏgraphic€in€nature€on€the€ground€that€their€probative€value€was€substantiallyÏoutweighed€by€the€risk€of€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€€By€contrast,€the€photograph€thatÏwas€admitted€was€more€limited€in€nature,€revealing€the€victim's€back€as€she€lay€on€herÏside.€€Given€the€trial€court's€full€consideration€of€this€issue,€as€evidenced€by€itsÏadmission€of€one€photograph€and€exclusion€of€several€others,€we€conclude€that€theÏtrial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€this€regard.€€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€951.€€òòSeeóóÏòòalsoóó€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€263€(Tenn.€1994);€òòSmithóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€576;€òòState€v.ÏVan€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€477€(Tenn.€1993);€òòCaughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€at€536.€€It€wasÏnot€error€for€the€trial€court€to€admit€this€photograph.Ì€€Ìò òà@ à(4)Ìà àó óThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€"misleadingÏand€speculative"€opinion€testimony€about€how€gasoline€was€used€in€the€homicide.€€InÏessence,€Mike€Donnelly,€a€Tennessee€Fire€Marshall€arson€investigator,€gave€hisÏopinion€that€the€gasoline€had€been€"poured€rather€than€thrown"€onto€the€victim.€€TheÏdefendant€contends€that€Donnelly's€testimony€does€not€meet€the€four„part€test€forÏadmission€of€scientific€expert€testimony€provided€in€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,Ï412€(Tenn.€1983).€€In€òòWilliamsóó,€our€supreme€court€recognized€the€followingÍrequirements€for€expert€testimony:€(1)€the€witness€must€be€an€expert,€(2)€the€subjectÏmatter€of€the€witness'€testimony€must€be€proper,€(3)€the€subject€matter€must€conform€toÏa€generally€accepted€explanatory€theory,€and€(4)€the€probative€value€of€the€witness'Ïtestimony€must€outweigh€its€prejudicial€effect.€€òòIdóó.€at€412.€€In€fact,€the€defendant€nowÏclaims€that€Donnelly's€testimony€met€none€of€these€factors.€€ÌÌà àUnfortunately,€the€defendant's€objections€at€trial€were€not€so€plainlyÏstated.€€Donnelly€testified€in€detail€to€substantial€training€and€experience€relative€to€fireÏand€explosion€investigations.€€Without€objection,€the€trial€court€accepted€him€as€anÏexpert€witness€in€the€field€of€arson€investigation.€€Donnelly€testified€that€he€believedÏthat€the€fire€had€been€started€on€the€driver's€side€of€the€car,€both€front€and€rear€seatÏareas.€€He€indicated€that€these€areas€had€suffered€the€greatest€amount€of€damage€andÏwere€where€the€greatest€amount€of€combustibles€had€been€consumed.€€Donnelly€saidÏthat€gasoline€had€been€applied€to€the€driver's€side€of€the€car€as€an€accelerant.€€He€alsoÏtestified€that€based€on€his€examination€of€the€car€and€his€viewing€of€the€photographs€ofÏthe€victim's€burns,€he€believed€that€the€gasoline€had€been€poured€directly€onto€theÏvictim.€€He€said€that€his€belief€was€based€upon€the€fact€that€damage€was€limited€to€theÏinterior€of€the€car,€being€confined€to€the€driver's€side€of€the€car,€both€front€and€rear.€ÏLikewise,€he€relied€upon€the€fact€that€both€the€front€and€back€of€the€victim's€body€wasÏburned,€an€indication€that€accelerant€was€not€just€splashed€onto€her€while€she€was€inÏthe€car.€€ÌÌà àDuring€the€course€of€this€testimony,€the€defendant's€objection€primarilyÏrelated€to€the€fact€that€Donnelly€was€not€a€doctor,€in€terms€of€his€attempting€to€interpretÏhow€an€accelerant€was€applied€to€the€victim's€body.€€The€trial€court€concluded€thatÏDonnelly€was€entitled€to€give€his€opinion€based€upon€his€expertise,€his€review€of€theÏautopsy€photographs,€the€lab€and€investigative€reports,€and€his€personal€inspection€ofÏthe€materials€and€car.€€In€this€respect,€the€trial€court's€ruling€was€within€its€discretionÏand€was€appropriate.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€562€(Tenn.€1993).€€ÌÌà àThe€more€specific€attacks€upon€Donnelly's€testimony€that€the€defendantÏnow€raises€under€òòWilliamsóó€cannot€be€pursued€because€they€were€not€previouslyÏraised.€€Obviously,€if€any€question€had€been€raised€in€the€trial€court€about€the€reliabilityÏof€the€scientific€principles€involving€fire€accelerants€and€paths€of€burning,€fullÏexplanation€may€have€been€forthcoming€from€Donnelly€or€other€experts.€€WithoutÏproper€objection,€we€will€not€fault€the€trial€court€or€the€state€for€not€presenting€a€greaterÏfoundation€for€the€opinions€Donnelly€gave.€€Otherwise,€we€note€that€expert€testimonyÏregarding€the€nature€of€accelerants€or€the€paths€that€fires€take€is€not€uncommon.€€òòSeeóó,Ïòòe.g.óó,€òòOtis€v.€Cambridge€Mutual€Fire€Insurance€Companyóó,€850€S.W.2d€439,€443„444Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€In€this€respect,€given€the€record€of€Donnelly's€expertise,€the€items€heÏreviewed,€and€the€nature€of€the€conclusions€he€reached,€we€are€unable€to€hold€that€hisÏtestimony€was€improperly€speculative€or€otherwise€inadmissible.€à àÌò òÇà@ àà@ à(5)Ìó óà àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€at€theÏguilt€phase€to€allow€him€to€present€proof€of€his€mental€state€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€ÏParticularly,€he€asserts€that€the€trial€court€should€have€allowed€the€testimony€of€Dr.ÏRoger€Meyer,€testimony€regarding€the€troubled€relationship€between€the€defendantÏand€the€victim,€and€testimony€regarding€the€defendant€and€victim€using€drugs.€€TheÏstate's€response€is€limited€to€defending€the€trial€court's€rejecting€evidence€of€theÏvictim's€drug€use,€leaving€unanswered€the€defendant's€other€assertions.€€In€any€event,Ïwe€agree€with€the€state€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€refusing€to€allow€evidence€ofÏthe€victim's€purported€drug€use€at€other€times.€€Moreover,€we€note€that€contrary€to€theÏdefendant's€claim,€the€trial€court€held€that€evidence€of€the€defendant's€intoxication€andÏalcohol€consumption€was€relevant€and€admissible.€ÌÌà àRegarding€Dr.€Meyer€not€testifying€at€the€guilt€phase,€the€defendant€nowÏcontends€that€Dr.€Meyer€was€an€expert€witness€whose€testimony€was€relevant€to€showÏthat€the€defendant€had€diminished€capacity€so€as€to€be€unable€to€premeditate€orÏdeliberate€the€victim's€killing.€€He€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1992),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993),€involving€a€pre„November€1989× ƒM ××  ×€Ïoffense,€in€which€this€court€indicated€that€a€defense€of€diminished€capacity€could€beÏused€if€a€defendant€were€shown€to€be€incapable€of€forming€a€specific€criminal€intent.€ÍLater,€this€court€in€òòState€v.€Phippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€138,€143€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),Ïacknowledged€that€the€overhaul€of€the€criminal€code€in€1989€did€away€with€theÏconcept€of€common€law€defenses,€but€stated€that€"diminished€capacity€is€not€a€defenseÏthat€absolves€the€accused€from€culpability;€rather,€it€is€a€rule€of€evidence€which€allowsÏthe€introduction€of€evidence€to€negate€the€existence€of€specific€intent€when€aÏdefendant€is€charged€with€a€specific€intent€crime."€€In€this€respect,€this€court€held€thatÏ"evidence,€Ñ Ü Ñincluding€expert€testimony,€on€an€accused's€mental€state,€is€admissible€inÏTennessee€to€negate€the€elements€of€specific€intent,€including€premeditation€andÏdeliberation€in€a€first„€degree€murder€case."€€òòIdóó.€at€149.€€ÌÌà àWe€believe,€though,€that€the€record€before€us€does€not€show€any€error€byÏthe€trial€court€in€its€ruling€regarding€the€type€of€evidence€the€defendant€could€present€atÏthe€guilt€phase.€€After€the€state€rested€its€case„in„chief€in€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial,Ïdefense€counsel€requested€the€trial€court€to€rule€on€whether€or€not€Dr.€Meyer'sÏtestimony€could€be€admitted.€€The€trial€court€asked€about€the€nature€of€the€testimonyÏand€the€following€discussion€occurred:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àà à[DEFENSE€COUNSEL]:€Talking€about€the€type€ofÏindividual€that€„„€what€his€testing€revealed€about€theÏdefendant€in€this€case,€and€then€take€him€to€the€situationÏwhere€„„€I€mean€there's€going€to€be€proof€„„€there's€alreadyÏbeen€proof€put€on€about€alcohol€consumption,€and€whatÏthat€consumption€„„€what€effect€that€consumption€wouldÏhave€had€on€him€with€his€type€of€personality,€in€addition€toÏexploring€his€state€of€mind,€given€his€personality€makeup,€Ïposing€facts€that€have€been€presented€here€in€court€aboutÍthe€incident€and€how€it€occurred,€what€his€expert€opinionÏwould€be€about€how€he€would€react€under€thoseÏcircumstances.€€ÌÌà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€I€don't€understand€„„€of€course,€state€ofÏmind€is€important€if€it€goes€to€a€defense.€€If€it€goes€toÏnegating€key€elements€in€the€case€„„€ÌÌà àà à[DEFENSE€COUNSEL]:€Intent,€Your€Honor.ÌÌà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€€But€just€general€state€of€mind,€what€hisÏfeelings€are,€what€his€attitude€was€toward€the€victim€inÏgeneral,€I€don't€see€how€that€particular€state€of€mindÏcontributes€toward€a€defense.€€I€assume€at€this€time,€basedÏon€what€I've€heard€up€to€this€point,€his€defense€isÏintoxication,€and€he€could€not€form€the€requisite€€intent€toÏpremeditate€and€deliberate€and€commit€an€intentionalÏmurder.€€Is€that€correct?€ÌÌà8 àà à[DEFENSE€COUNSEL]:€Well,€it's€not€only€withÏreference€to€intoxication,€but€it's€also€with€reference€toÏemotional€distress€and€stress€that€was€produced€by€theÏrelationship€between€the€parties.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓAfter€further€discussions,€the€trial€court€stated€the€following:ÌÌÓ  Óà8 àAnything€going€towards€state€of€mind€that€would€create€aÏdefense€or€an€excuse€for€this€killing,€the€Court€will€allow.€ÏBut€just€a€general€state€of€mind€of€the€defendant€aboutÏattitudes€€toward€the€deceased,€I€don't€think€it's€relevant€atÏthis€time,€I€don't€think€it's€admissible.€€I'm€not€going€to€allowÏthat€testimony€about€drugs€and€whatever€between€the€twoÏpeople€€just€to€show€generally€what€the€defendant€wasÏthinking,€unless€it€goes€specifically€toward€a€defense.€€And,Ïas€I€understand€what€you€said,€it€does€not.€€ÌÌà8 àà àAlso,€the€law€of€the€State€of€Tennessee€does€notÏrecognize€diminished€capacity€in€this€state.× ƒN ××  ×€€And€the€onlyÏrelevancy€I€see€as€far€as€the€doctor's€testimony€would€beÏgoing€toward€insanity€as€a€defense€in€this€case€and€not€asÏto€diminished€capacity.ÌÌà8 àà àNow,€as€far€as€the€defense€of€intoxication,€if€there€isÏcredible€testimony€from€the€doctor€and€he€can€give€anÏopinion€as€to€the€extent€of€the€state€of€intoxication€of€Mr.€HallÏat€the€time€of€commission€of€the€offense,€then€that€would€beÏrelevant,€but€just€general€stress€or€general€attitude€towardÏlife€would€not€be€a€defense€in€this€case.€€Any€testimonyÏgoing€toward€the€defense€of€intoxication,€I€will€allow€.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓThe€defense€made€no€further€proffer€during€the€guilt€phase€about€the€intended€natureÏof€Dr.€Meyer's€testimony.ÌÌà àWe€do€not€believe€that€the€defendant€was€entitled€to€introduce€at€the€guiltÏphase€expert€evidence€of€his€particular€personality€or€character€traits€for€the€purposesÏstated€by€defense€counsel.€€In€òòSheltonóó,€this€court€noted€that€a€cornerstone€to€aÏdiminished€capacity€defense€is€"that€the€defendant's€state€of€mind€at€the€time€of€theÏoffense€had€to€be€the€product€of€a€mental€disease€or€defect,€not€just€any€mentalÏcondition."€€854€S.W.2d€at€122.€€In€this€respect,€as€òòSheltonóó€also€indicates,€it€is€theÏshowing€of€a€lack€of€òòcapacityóó€to€form€the€requisite€culpable€intent€that€is€central€toÍdiminished€capacity.€€òòIdóó.€€We€do€not€believe€òòPhippsóó€intended€to€expand€the€admissionÏof€evidence€beyond€this€point.ÌÌà àHowever,€the€defendant's€proffer€at€the€guilt€phase€was€in€terms€of€theÏexpert€testifying€about€the€defendant's€"personality€makeup"€and€how€he€would€reactÏunder€the€circumstances€otherwise€proven.€€This€proffer€did€not€advise€the€trial€court€ofÏthe€asserted€existence€either€of€mental€disease€or€defect€or€of€the€inability€to€form€theÏmental€state€necessary€to€prove€intent,€premeditation€or€deliberation.€€As€a€threshold€toÏthe€admissibility€of€expert€testimony,€the€testimony€must€"substantially€assist€the€trier€ofÏfact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€ÏAlso,€expert€testimony€can€lead€to€a€danger€of€undue€prejudice€or€confusion€of€theÏissues€because€of€its€"aura€of€special€reliability€and€trustworthiness."€€òòBallardóó,€855ÏS.W.2d€at€561.€€In€this€respect,€expert€testimony€that€the€defendant€would€react€in€anyÏgiven€manner€because€of€his€"personality€makeup"€misleads€the€jury€regarding€theÏdefendant's€mental€state€because€it,€by€itself,€bears€no€relevance€to€whether€theÏdefendant€was€òòcapableóó€of€forming€the€requisite€mental€state.ÌÌà àSociety€is€comprised€of€myriad€individuals€with€diverse€personalities€andÏtemperaments€who€are€jointly€and€severally€bound€by€society's€common€codes€ofÏconduct€and€responsibility.€€The€mere€fact€that€one€is€more€apt,€by€personality€type,€toÏbecome€emotional€in€response€to€a€particular€stimulus€does€not€provide€a€means€forÍthat€person€to€be€absolved€from€the€same€responsibility€to€which€the€law€holds€anotherÏwho€might€be€less€apt€to€respond€as€passionately€to€the€same€stimulus.€€If€it€did,€thenÏeach€person€would€be€the€law€unto€him€or€herself€based€solely€upon€his€or€herÏparticular€personality€makeup.€€Thus,€as€a€predicate€to€admissibility,€expert€witnessÏtestimony€about€a€defendantððs€mental€condition€presented€for€the€purpose€of€negatingÏa€culpable€mental€state€must€be€based€upon€that€condition€being€a€product€of€mentalÏdisease€or€defect€that€bears€on€the€defendantððs€capability€to€form€the€mental€stateÏrequired€for€the€offense.ÌÌà à€Our€review€of€the€record€leads€us€to€believe€that€the€trial€court's€rulingsÏwere€entirely€justified€given€the€substance€of€the€defendant's€proffer.€€In€fact,€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€bar€Dr.€Meyer€from€testifying€and€expressed€a€willingness€to€entertainÏexpert€testimony€that€would€be€probative€in€terms€of€tending€to€negate€the€culpableÏmental€state€required€for€an€offense.€€In€this€sense,€the€fact€that€Dr.€Meyer€did€not€testifyÏat€the€guilt€phase€was€not€the€result€of€erroneous€rulings€by€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà àFinally,€we€acknowledge€that€Dr.€Meyer€testified€at€the€sentencing€phaseÏand€stated,€at€one€point,€that€he€believed€the€defendant€to€have€a€borderlineÏpersonality€disorder€and€that€such€people€could€have€brief€episodes€of€rage€duringÏ"temporary€states€of€mental€illness."€€However,€the€trial€court€was€not€advised€duringÏthe€guilt€phase€that€these€points€were€involved.€€Also,€as€far€as€the€potential€forÍprejudice,€we€believe€that€any€fair€review€of€Dr.€Meyerððs€testimony,€including€the€cross„examination,€would€result€in€a€conclusion€that€Dr.€Meyerððs€positions€were€greatlyÏweakened€„„€to€the€point€that€his€conclusions€bearing€on€diminished€capacity€are€quiteÏsuspect.€€ÌÌà@ àò ò(6)à àó óÌò ò€€€€€€€€€ó óà àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€gave€incorrect€instructions€to€theÏjury€on€the€first€degree€murder€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€As€weÏnoted,€our€supreme€court€has€held€that€an€instruction€to€the€jury€that€premeditation€mayÏbe€formed€"in€an€instant"€should€be€abandoned.€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.€2d€at€546.€€TheÏcourt€concluded€that€such€an€instruction€improperly€blurs€the€distinction€betweenÏpremeditation€and€deliberation€and€does€not€properly€allow€the€jury€to€considerÏwhether€a€defendant's€actions€were€done€with€reflection€and€a€cool€purpose.€€òòIdóó.€€òòSeeóóÏòòalsoóó€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€147.Ìà àà àÌà àIn€the€present€case€the€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€on€theÏseparate€elements€of€intent,€premeditation,€and€deliberation.€€However,€theÏinstructions€also€charged€that:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àPremeditation€means€that€the€intent€to€kill€must€have€beenÏformed€prior€to€the€act€itself.€€Such€intent€to€kill€may€beÏconceived€and€deliberately€formed€in€an€instant.€€It€is€notÏnecessary€that€the€purpose€to€kill€preexist€in€the€mind€of€theÏaccused€for€any€definite€period€of€time.€€It€is€sufficient€that€itÍpreceded€the€act,€however€short€the€interval,€as€long€as€itÏwas€the€result€of€reflection€and€judgment.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓThe€instruction€contained€the€language€the€court€in€òòBrownóó€held€should€be€abandoned.€ÏThe€defendant€did€not€object€to€the€instruction€at€trial€in€March€of€1992€nor€did€he€raiseÏthe€erroneous€instruction€as€an€issue€in€his€initial€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€òòBrownóó€wasÏdecided€in€June€1992€and€the€defendant€included€the€issue€in€his€amended€motion€forÏa€new€trial€filed€in€August€1992.€€In€denying€relief€on€this€ground€during€the€motion€forÏa€new€trial€hearing,€the€trial€court€noted€that€òòBrownóó€was€not€to€be€applied€retroactivelyÏand€that,€in€any€event,€there€was€sufficient€evidence€of€premeditation€and€deliberationÏin€this€case€to€render€any€error€harmless.€€The€state€on€appeal€argues€these€identicalÏgrounds€and€claims€that€the€issue€is€without€merit.€€We€agree.€ÌÌ€€€€€à àIn€òòState€v.€Meadowsóó,€849€S.W.2d€748,€754€(Tenn.€1993),€our€supremeÏcourt€reaffirmed€its€position€regarding€retroactivity€when€it€stated€that€"newlyÏannounced€state€constitutional€rules€will€be€given€retroactive€application€to€casesÏwhich€are€still€in€the€trial€or€appellate€process€at€the€time€such€rules€are€announced,Ïunless€some€compelling€reason€exists€for€not€so€doing."€€The€first€step€in€determiningÏwhether€a€case€will€be€given€retroactive€application€is€whether€it€announces€a€newÏconstitutional€rule.€€"[A]€case€announces€a€new€constitutional€rule€when€it€breaks€newÏground€or€imposes€a€new€obligation€on€the€States€or€the€Federal€Government."€ÏòòTeague€v.€Laneóó,€489€U.S.€288,€301,€109€S.€Ct.€1060,€1970€(1989).€€ÌÌà àThis€court€has€held€on€numerous€occasions€that€the€òòBrownóó€decision€didÏnot€create€a€new€constitutional€rule.€€òòSeeóó,€òòeg.óó,€òòState€v.€Loftonóó,€898€S.W.2d€246€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€Feb.€27,€1995);€òòState€v.€Jimmy€Sillsóó,€No.€03C01„9410„CR„00370,€Hamilton€Co.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€May€10,€1995),€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.ÏSept.€11,€1995);€€òòState€v.€Joe€Nathan€Personóó,€No.€02C01„9205„CC„00106,€MadisonÏCo.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Sept.€29,€1993);€òòState€v.€Willie€Bacon,€Jr.óó,€No.€1164,€HamiltonÏCo.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Aug.€4,€1992),€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó.€€Also,€as€stated€in€òòLoftonóó,€theÏsupreme€court€did€not€hold€in€òòBrownóó€that€the€instruction€on€premeditation€violated€aÏconstitutional€right.€€òòLoftonóó,€898€S.W.2d€at€249„250.€€It€only€stated€that€it€would€beÏprudent€to€abandon€the€instruction€because€of€the€potential€for€confusion.€€òòIdóó.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€its€instructions€relative€to€the€elements€ofÏpremeditated€and€deliberated€first€degree€murder.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òÌó óÌà@ àò òSENTENCING€PHASEÌà@ à(7)ó óÌ›à àThe€defendant€initially€contends€that€the€use€of€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(7)Ï(1991),€that€the€ð ðmurder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€inÏcommitting€€œ.€.€.€any€.€.€.›€arson.€.€.€€,"€as€an€aggravating€factor€in€this€case€wasÏunconstitutional.€€First,€he€argues€that€the€jury's€finding€that€the€murder€occurred€in€theÏperpetration€of€arson€is€inconsistent€and€irrational€with€respect€to€its€verdict€ofÍpremeditated€first€degree€murder.€€Second,€he€argues€that€the€use€of€circumstance€(7)Ïalong€with€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5),€that€the€ð ðmurder€was€especially€heinous,Ïatrocious,€or€cruel,"€amounted€to€an€improper€"double€weighing"€of€aggravatingÏcircumstances€because€they€were€based€on€the€same€underlying€facts,€that€is,€theÏburning€of€the€victim's€car.€€In€other€words,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€same€factsÏshould€not€support€two€separate€aggravating€circumstances€for€imposition€of€the€deathÏpenalty.€€Also,€he€claims€that€the€stateððs€proof€of€a€premeditated€first€degree€murderÏshows€that€the€felony€of€arson€was€collateral€to€the€killing€and€that€enhancement€toÏaggravated€arson€based€on€serious€bodily€injury€to€the€victim,€for€which€he€received€aÏseparate€twenty„five„year€sentence,€renders€the€use€of€the€felony€to€impose€the€deathÏpenalty€to€be€improper.€ÌÌà àThe€application€of€circumstance€(7)€to€a€premeditated€murder€convictionÏis€not€improper€or€inconsistent€with€the€jury's€verdict€where€a€premeditated€murder€isÏcommitted€during€the€perpetration€of€a€felony.€€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,Ï346€(Tenn.€1992).€€Also,€we€believe€that€this€circumstance€is€broad€enough€to€allowÏthe€jury€to€consider€the€defendantððs€commission€of€a€felony€even€though€the€felony,Ïitself,€was€the€means€by€which€the€victimððs€death€was€caused.€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€we€note€that€the€aggravated€arson€conviction€and€sentenceÏhave€not€been€appealed.€€Any€claim€of€double€enhancement€would€affect€the€lesserÍcrime€not€the€greater.€€However,€we€still€do€not€believe€that€the€aggravated€arsonÏconviction€and€twenty„five„year€sentence€have€any€bearing€on€the€application€ofÏaggravating€circumstance€(5).€€Certainly,€the€means€by€which€the€defendant€chose€toÏkill€the€victim€ð ðinvolved€torture€[and]€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€toÏproduce€death.ðð€€That€is,€we€are€not€obligated€to€view€a€death€by€burning€as€theÏequivalent€of€death€by€other€means€in€considering€whether€circumstance€(5)€applies.€ÏThe€evidence€in€this€case€reflects€that€the€victim€suffered€for€hours€from€third€degreeÏburns€that€covered€over€ninety„two€percent€of€her€body€while€she€remained€consciousÏbefore€dying.€€The€physical€abuse€as€existing€beyond€that€necessary€to€show€seriousÏbodily€injury€under€the€aggravated€arson€statute€implicates€circumstance€(5)€andÏsupports€its€application€in€this€case.€€We€conclude€that€the€application€of€theseÏaggravating€circumstances€was€constitutional.ÌÌÇà@ àò ò(8)€and€(9)Ìà àó óThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€requiring€the€defense€toÏdisclose€a€report€that€had€been€prepared€by€his€court„appointed€investigator,€ColinÏMitchell,€through€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Meyer.€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€report€wasÏattorney€work€product€and€was€privileged.€€He€argues€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€theÏdisclosure€because€the€prosecution€was€then€permitted€to€cross„examine€Dr.€MeyerÏregarding€numerous€acts€committed€by€the€defendant€as€a€child,€and€then€argue€theseÏacts€to€the€jury€during€summation.€€The€state€concedes€that€the€report€wasÏundiscoverable€work€product€under€Rule€16(b)(2),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,× ƒP ××  ×€€but€argues€thatÏbecause€the€defendant€allowed€Dr.€Meyer€to€review€the€report€before€testifying,€theÏreport€is€discoverable€as€a€basis€of€his€evaluation.€€They€also€argue€that€the€specificÏinstances€of€conduct€were€properly€admitted€as€an€impeachment€of€Dr.€Meyer'sÏevaluation€that€the€defendant€exhibited€various€character€traits€consistent€with€both€aÏborderline€personality€disorder€and€a€post„traumatic€stress€disorder€by€showing,Ïinstead,€that€the€defendant€also€exhibited€several€character€traits€of€an€antisocialÏpersonality€disorder.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àRule€703,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€provides€that€an€expert€may€base€his€or€herÏopinion€on€facts€or€data€"perceived€by€or€made€known€to€the€expert€at€or€before€theÏhearing."€€Furthermore,€Rule€705,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€provides€that€the€court€may€requireÏdisclosure€of€the€underlying€facts€or€data€relied€upon€by€the€expert€in€formulating€hisÏopinion.€€Dr.€Meyer€testified€that€he€completed€his€evaluation€and€report€of€theÏdefendant€in€December€1991.€€On€cross„examination,€he€testified€that€he€relied€uponÏthe€defendant's€statements€and€the€investigator's€report€to€develop€facts€surroundingÏthe€defendant's€background.€€In€a€jury„out€hearing,€Dr.€Meyer€testified€that€he€receivedÏthe€investigator's€report€about€one€week€prior€to€trial,€used€it€to€verify€various€aspectsÏof€the€defendant's€childhood€and€educational€background,€and€considered€it€beforeÏtestifying€at€trial.€€When€cross„examination€resumed,€Dr.€Meyer€admitted€that€heÏaltered€his€opinion€of€the€defendant's€evaluation€somewhat€after€reviewing€theÏinvestigator's€report€relative€to€the€defendant's€childhood€background€and€behavior.€ÏThus,€information€in€the€investigator's€report€helped€form€a€basis€for€Dr.€Meyer'sÏopinions€and€it€was€then€subject€to€disclosure€to€the€state.Ìà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àRelative€to€the€defendant's€claim€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€cross„examination€of€Dr.€Meyer€about€several€instances€of€the€defendant's€setting€fire€toÏthings€as€a€child,€the€state€argues€that€the€specific€instances€of€conduct€were€used€as€aÏbasis€to€impeach€Dr.€Meyer's€evaluation€and€to€show€that€the€defendant€exhibitedÏcharacter€traits€associated€with€an€antisocial€personality€disorder.€€As€discussedÍearlier,€Rule€404(b),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€deals€with€the€admission€of€prior€bad€acts€of€theÏdefendant.€€A€jury„out€hearing€was€held€in€which€the€trial€court€ruled€that€specificÏinstances€of€conduct€could€be€discussed€relative€to€the€reliability€of€Dr.€Meyer'sÏdiagnosis.€€We€conclude€that€the€prior€bad€acts€contained€in€the€investigator's€reportÏupon€which€Dr.€Meyer,€in€part,€based€his€evaluation€of€the€defendant€were€admissibleÏto€impeach€the€doctor's€diagnosis€and€that€the€danger€of€their€prejudicial€effect€did€notÏoutweigh€their€probative€value.€€€ÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌÓÓÓ  Óà@ àò ò(10)ó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€with€regard€to€itsÏinstructions€to€the€jury€on€the€mitigating€circumstances€in€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(2)€andÏ(j)(8).€€The€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(2)€circumstance€is€that€the€ð ðmurder€was€committedÏwhile€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€extreme€mental€or€emotionalÏdisturbance."€€The€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(8)€circumstance€is€that€the€ð ðcapacity€of€theÏdefendant€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€[his]€conduct€or€to€conform€[his]€conduct€toÏthe€requirements€of€the€law€was€substantially€impaired€as€a€result€of€mental€disease€orÏdefect€or€intoxication€which€was€insufficient€to€establish€a€defense€to€the€crime€butÏwhich€substantially€affected€the€defendant's€judgment."€€The€defendant€contends€thatÏthe€use€of€"extreme"€in€the€former€provision€and€"substantially"€in€the€latter,€deprivedÏthe€jury€of€potential€mitigation€evidence€that€falls€short€of€these€standards.ÌÌà àThe€defendant's€argument€was€rejected€by€our€supreme€court€inÏaddressing€the€identically€worded€provisions€under€the€previous€death€penalty€statute.€ÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€16„17€(Tenn.€1993).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„203(j)(2)and€(j)(8).€€The€defendant€in€òòSmithóó€argued€that€"the€use€of€the€modifier€in€(j)(2)Ïand€œ(j)(8)›€œmisled›€the€jury€in€its€consideration€of€evidence€of€his€mental€and€emotionalÏimpairments€and€intoxication€at€the€time€of€the€œoffense."€€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€16.›€€TheÏsupreme€court,€however,€concluded€that€there€was€no€likelihood€of€the€jury€beingÏmisled€by€these€provisions.€€œId.›€œat€17.›€ÌÌà àAlso,€the€defendant's€contention€that€the€jury€is€not€provided€a€basis€uponÏwhich€to€consider€mitigating€evidence€that€falls€short€of€being€"extreme"€or€"substantial"Ïis€unavailing.€€As€the€state€notes,€the€jury€was€instructed€on€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(9),Ïwhich€provides€that€the€jury€may€consider€"òò[a]nyóó€other€mitigating€factor€which€is€raisedÏby€the€evidence€produced€by€either€the€prosecution€or€defense€at€either€the€guilt€orÏsentencing€œhearing."›€€(Emphasis€added).€€We€note€as€well€that€a€considerable€portionÏof€the€defense€argument€to€the€jury€related€to€the€various€aspects€of€the€defendantððsÏmental€and€emotional€states,€from€his€youth€to€the€time€of€trial.€€Thus,€the€qualifiers€inÏthe€statutory€provisions€in€question€did€not€unconstitutionally€limit€the€jury'sÍconsideration€of€mitigating€evidence.€€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€268.€€We€conclude€thatÏthe€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.œ× ƒQ ××  ×›ÌÌà@ àò ò(11)ó óÌà àThe€defendant's€next€contention€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€toÏinstruct€the€jury€relative€to€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances.€€The€defendantÏsubmitted€numerous€requests€for€jury€instructions€as€to€what€he€characterized€asÏnonstatutory€mitigating€factors.€€The€requests,€in€our€view,€may€be€generallyÏconsidered€as€falling€into€one€or€more€of€the€following€categories:€ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à(1)€The€defendant's€background€and€family€history€(requestÏnos.€19,€37,€45„47);ÌÌà8 à(2)€The€defendant's€history€of€mental€and€emotionalÏproblems€(nos.€20„22,€26,€27,€29,€35);€ÌÌà8 à(3)€The€defendant's€low€intellect€and€learning€disabilitiesÏ(nos.€23„25);€ÌÌà8 à(4)€The€defendant's€personality€traits€(nos.€30„34,€37);ÌÌà8 à(5)€The€defendant's€involvement€in€a€turmoiled€relationshipÏwith€the€victim€and€its€effect€on€his€mental€state€(nos.€28,€36,Ï39,€48,€52);ÌÌà8 à(6)€The€defendant's€expression€of€remorse€and€amenabilityÏto€treatment€in€a€prison€setting€(nos.€40,€41,€44,€55,€56);ÌÌà8 à(7)€The€effect€of€the€defendant's€drug€and€alcohol€abuseÏ(nos.€38,€49,€51);€andÌÌà8 à(8)€The€jury's€consideration€of€mercy€and€compassion€(nos.Ï42,€44,€64„66).€ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓThe€trial€court€refused€to€include€these€nonstatutory€mitigating€factors€in€the€juryÏinstructions€on€the€basis€of€œòòState›€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239€(Tenn.€œ1989),›€andÏòòState€v.€Wrightóó,€756€S.W.2d€669€(Tenn.€œ1988).›€€In€òòWrightóó,€the€supreme€court,€inÏaddressing€the€pre„1989€death€penalty€provisions,€held€that€there€is€no€constitutionalÏor€statutory€requirement€for€specific€instructions€to€be€given€regarding€mitigatingÏfactors€other€than€those€provided€in€the€statute.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€also€noted€that:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à[a]fter€reviewing€[the€special€requests]€I€found€that€many€ofÏthem€are€already€included€in€the€charge€that€the€Court€isÏgiving€.€.€.€or€some€of€them€are€what€I€felt€like€are€.€.€.Ïrepetitious€.€.€.€.€€And€I've€also€found€that€many€of€them€.€.€.Ïare€not€appropriate€as€far€as€accurate€statement€of€the€law.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓThus,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€on€the€mitigating€factors€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(2),€(j)(7),€(j)(8)€and€(j)(9).€€The€charge€relative€to€(j)(9)€was€as€followsÓÓ:ÌÌÓ  Óà8 àAny€other€mitigating€factor€which€is€raised€by€the€evidenceÏproduced€by€either€the€prosecution€or€defense€at€either€theÏguilt€or€sentencing€hearing;€that€is,€you€shall€consider€anyÏaspect€of€the€defendant's€character€or€record,€or€any€aspectÏof€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€favorable€to€theÏdefendant€which€is€supported€by€the€evidence.ÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓIn€addition,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€"[n]o€distinction€shall€be€madeÏbetween€mitigating€circumstances€one€through€four€and€those€otherwise€raised€by€theÏevidence."€€òòSeeóó€œT.P.I.€Crim.€7.04€(3d€ed.).›ÌÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€under€the€present€death€penalty€sentencingÏprovisions,€specifically€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(e),œ× ƒR ××  ×›€€the€trial€court€is€obligated€to€chargeÏthe€jury€on€nonstatutory€mitigating€factors€when€such€factors€are€raised€by€theÏevidence€and€properly€requested€by€the€defense.€€He€further€argues€that€failing€to€giveÏsuch€instructions€deprives€the€jury€of€the€opportunity€to€give€mitigating€weight€to€anyÏ"aspects€of€the€defendant's€character€or€record€and€any€of€the€circumstances€of€theÏoffense€that€the€defendant€proffers€as€a€basis€for€a€sentence€less€than€death."€€òòLockettÏv.€Ohioóó,€438€U.S.€586,€98€S.€Ct.€2954,€3964€œ(1978);›€œòòseeóó›€òòalsoóó€òòSkipper€v.€SouthÏCarolinaóó,€476€U.S.€1,€106€S.€Ct.€1669€(1986).€ÌÌà àAfter€the€defendantððs€case€was€on€appeal,€our€supreme€court€held€inÏòòState€v.€Odomóó,€œ928›€S.W.2d€18€(Tenn.€1996),€that€with€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„13„204(e)›€requiringÏthat€no€distinction€be€made€between€statutory€mitigators€and€any€other€œpotentialÏmitigator›€raised€by€the€evidence,€the€trial€court€shall,€upon€the€defendantððs€timely€andÏproper€request,€submit€the€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€to€the€jury€in€writing.€ÏœòòIdóó.›€at€31.€€The€court€warned,€though,€that€it€is€constitutionally€improper€for€the€trial€courtÏto€instruct€in€such€a€way€as€to€convey€to€the€jury€an€indication€that€the€trial€court€hasÏfound€or€believes€that€certain€facts€have€been€established.€€òòIdóó.;€òòseeóó€Tenn.€œConst.›€art.ÏVI,€ðð€9.€€ÌÌà àWe€conclude,€though,€that€the€trial€court€in€this€case€did€not€err€inÏrejecting€the€defendantððs€requested€instructions€under€the€circumstances€presentedÏand€that,€in€any€event,€the€record€does€not€disclose€any€measure€of€œprejudice€to€theÏdefendant›€from€deviating€from€the€òòOdomóó€procedures.€€Each€of€the€defendantððsÏrequests€for€jury€instructions€regarding€specific€mitigators€had€the€trial€court€telling€theÏjury€that€it€ð ðshall€consider€as€a€mitigating€circumstance€the€fact€thatðð€the€defendant€was,Ïfor€example,€ð ðimmature€for€his€age,€and€lacked€normal€emotional€development€.€.€.€.ðð€ÏNeedless€to€say,€these€requests€would€have€had€the€trial€court€overstep€the€bounds€ofÏits€authority€by€violating€the€constitutional€prohibition€against€a€trial€court€charging€orÍcommenting€on€the€facts,€primarily€in€terms€of€the€weight€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏConst.€œart.›€VI,€ðð€9.ÌÌà àœAlso,€as›€the€trial€court€noted,€many€of€the€defendantððs€special€requestsÏare€repetitious€of€one€another€and€potentially€duplicative€of€the€statutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances€upon€which€the€jury€was€instructed.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(2),Ï(j)(7)€and€(j)(8).€€However,€this€did€not€mean€that€the€defendant€was€limited€inÏpresenting€his€contentions€about€mitigation€to€the€jury.€€Obviously,€the€defendantððsÏwitnesses€presented€substantial€evidence€upon€which€he€relied.€€Moreover,€in€closingÏargument€at€the€sentencing€phase,€the€defendant€made€detailed€arguments€regardingÏvirtually€every€point€in€mitigation€that€he€sought€to€present€by€instruction.€€Finally,€weÏnote€that€the€trial€court€œincluded›€the€following€in€its€definition€of€mitigation:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àA€mitigating€circumstance€is€any€aspect€of€Leroy€Hall,€Jr.ððsÏcharacter,€background€history,€or€physical€condition€or€theÏnature€and€circumstances€of€the€crime€which€in€fairness€orÏmercy,€calls€for€a€sentence€less€than€death€.€.€.€.€€The€lawÏdoes€not€identify€or€limit€what€you€can€consider€concerningÏLeroy€Hall,€Jr.ððs€character,€background€history,€and€physicalÏcondition€or€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€crime€[as]Ïmitigating.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓIn€consideration€of€the€improprieties€of€the€defendantððs€requested€instructions,€theÏsubstance€of€his€proof€and€argument€actually€made,€and€the€instructions€issued€by€theÏcourt,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€relative€to€mitigatingÏcircumstances.€€ÌÌà@ àò ò(12)ó óÌà àAs€a€corollary€to€the€preceding€issue,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€refusing€to€allow€certain€evidence€that€the€defense€claimed€wasÏmitigating€in€nature.€€We€note,€of€course,€that€under€the€Eighth€and€FourteenthÏAmendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution,€a€capital€sentencer€must€not€beÏprecluded€from€considering€as€a€mitigating€factor€any€aspect€of€a€defendant'sÏcharacter€or€record€and€any€circumstances€of€the€offense€offered€by€the€defendant€as€aÏbasis€for€a€sentence€less€than€death.€€òòSkipperóó,€€476€U.S.€at€8,€106€S.€Ct.€at€1671;ÏòòLockettóó,€438€U.S.€at€604,€€98€S.€Ct.€at€2964.€€In€addition,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(c)Ïprovides:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àIn€the€sentencing€proceeding,€evidence€may€be€presentedÏas€to€any€matter€that€the€court€deems€relevant€to€theÏpunishment€and€may€include,€but€not€be€limited€to,€theÏnature€and€circumstances€of€the€crime;€the€defendant'sÏcharacter,€background€history,€and€physical€condition;€œany›Ïevidence€tending€to€establish€or€rebut€the€aggravatingÏcircumstances€enumerated€in€subsection€(i);€and€anyÏevidence€tending€to€establish€or€rebut€any€mitigatingÏfactors.€€òòAny€such€evidence€which€the€court€deems€to€haveÏprobative€value€on€the€issue€of€punishment€may€beÏreceived€regardless€of€its€admissibility€under€the€rules€ofÏevidenceóó;€provided,€that€the€defendant€is€accorded€a€fairÏopportunity€to€rebut€any€hearsay€statements€so€œadmitted.›€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓÓ  Óœ(emphasis›€added).€€The€trial€court€therefore€maintains€its€authority€to€determine€theÏadmissibility€of€evidence€offered€in€the€sentencing€phase€and€to€exclude€any€evidenceÏnot€relevant€to€the€above€factors.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€17;€òòState€v.ÍJohnsonóó,€632€S.W.2d€542,€548€(Tenn.€œ1982);›€œòòseeóó›€òòalsoóó€òòLockettóó,€438€U.S.€at€604,€98€S.ÏCt.€at€2964,€n.12.€€ÌÌà àIn€determining€the€effect€of€an€error€excluding€relevant€mitigatingÏevidence,€we€look€to€the€standard€set€forth€in€òòSkipperóó.€€There,€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€held€that€an€error€in€excluding€evidence€is€not€harmless€if€theÏexclusion€of€the€evidence€"may€have€affected€the€jury's€decision€to€impose€the€deathÏsentence."€€òòIdóó.€at€8,€106€S.€Ct.€at€1673.€€In€òòSkipperóó,€the€trial€court€had€excluded€theÏtestimony€offered€relative€to€the€defendant's€good€behavior€and€adjustments€since€hisÏincarceration€for€the€offense.€€The€Supreme€Court€concluded€that€the€"exclusion€by€theÏstate€trial€court€of€relevant€mitigating€evidence€impeded€the€sentencing€jury's€ability€toÏcarry€out€its€task€of€considering€all€relevant€facets€of€the€character€and€record€of€theÏindividual€offender."€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€defendant€sought€to€elicit€testimony€from€theÏdefendant's€mother€relative€to€the€nature€of€the€defendant's€relationship€with€the€victim.€ÏThe€witness€related€that€the€couple€was€very€happy€for€the€first€few€years€of€theirÏrelationship€but€started€having€problems€the€œpast›€two€years.€€The€couple€separatedÏand€reconciled€several€times.€€The€trial€court€sustained€an€objection€as€to€what€theÏvictim€told€the€witness€about€the€relationship€in€œNovember›€1990;€œhowever,›€theÍdefendant€made€no€proffer€of€evidence€in€this€œregard.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.›€R.€Evid.€103.€€We,Ïtherefore,€cannot€conclude€that€the€ruling€was€improper.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€103(a)(2).€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€further€elicited€from€the€defendant's€mother€statementsÏmade€by€the€defendant€regarding€his€feelings€toward€the€victim.€€The€prosecutionÏobjected€because€the€defense€had€not€specified€a€time€period€with€regard€to€theÏquestion.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€objection,€but€limited€the€defense€to€questionsÏ"within€the€approximate€period€of€time€when€the€murder€took€place."€€The€witness€wasÏthen€permitted€to€testify€as€to€the€nature€of€the€relationship€from€œDecember›€1990€to€theÏtime€of€the€offense.€€Again,€the€defense€made€no€proffer€of€any€additional€testimony€itÏsought€to€admit.€€The€nature€of€the€relationship€between€the€victim€and€the€defendant,Ïinsofar€as€it€was€a€troubled€one€and€had€a€potential€effect€on€the€defendant's€mentalÏstate,€was€clearly€conveyed€to€the€jury€through€the€testimony€of€this€witness€and€others.€ÏWe€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€excluded€additional€mitigatingÏevidence€in€this€regard.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€17„18.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€also€claims€that€the€trial€court€should€have€allowedÏadmission€of€certain€photographs€as€mitigating€evidence.€€The€photographs€includedÏone€of€the€defendant€at€thirteen€years€of€age,€and€several€of€the€victim.€€The€defendantÏargued€that€the€jury€should€consider€the€photos€because€they€depicted€how€he€lookedÏat€his€mental€age€of€thirteen,€and€how,€according€to€the€defense,€the€victim€"really€didÍlook€in€reality"€and€not€how€the€state€had€"represented€her€to€be."€€The€trial€court€ruledÏthat€the€photographs€were€not€relevant€to€any€factors€in€mitigation€and€excluded€themÏon€that€basis.€€ÌÌà àThe€testimony€of€Dr.€Meyer€established€clearly€his€opinion€relative€to€theÏdefendant's€emotional€and€intellectual€levels,€as€well€as€his€mental€age.€€IntroductionÏof€the€defendant's€photo€in€this€regard€would€arguably€have€been€cumulative.€€Thus,Ïexclusion€of€the€defendant's€photograph,€we€conclude,€did€not€affect€the€jury'sÏdecision€to€impose€the€death€penalty.€€œòòSeeóó›€òòSkipperóó,€476€U.S.€at€8,€106€S.€Ct.€at€1669.€ÏThe€defendant's€claim€with€regard€to€the€victim's€photographs€œis›€also€without€merit.€ÏFirst,€he€failed€to€show€how€such€evidence,€purporting€to€show€what€the€victim€"really"Ïlooked€like,€would€have€been€relevant€in€mitigation.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(c).€€Second,Ïwe€cannot,€on€this€record,€conclude€that€the€exclusion€of€such€photographs€affectedÏthe€jury's€decision€to€impose€the€death€penalty.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€did€notÏabuse€its€discretion€in€excluding€this€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€17„18.ÌÌà àFinally,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€jury€should€have€been€allowed€toÏconsider€the€medical€histories€of€the€victim's€past€abortions€as€mitigation€evidence.€€InÏruling€on€this€issue,€the€trial€court€said:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àThere's€proof€before€this€jury,€the€defendant€testified€aboutÏ[the€victim]€having€an€abortion,€that€it€was€weighing€on€hisÏmind,€and€that€.€.€.€he€was€concerned€about€the€fact€that€sheÍmight€be€pregnant€and€have€another€abortion.€€ThatÏtestimony€was€introduced€without€objection€from€the€stateÏand€it€is€before€this€jury.€€Whether€he€was€or€was€notÏsuffering€under€the€fact€that€she€œhad€had›€abortions€.€.€.€is€aÏquestion€the€jury€will€have€to€decide€.€.€.€.€It's€something€thatÏthe€jury€can€consider€as€a€mitigating€factor.€€ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓThus,€the€trial€court€allowed€evidence€that€the€victim€had€abortions€in€the€past.€€TheÏprosecution€objected€to€admitting€the€entire€records€of€the€procedures€and€the€trialÏcourt€sustained€the€objection:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àThere€are€some€pages€that€I€don't€think€are€relevant,€and€IÏdon't€think€it's€necessary€for€the€jury€to€.€.€.€know€the€exactÏprocedure€used.€€The€gross€description€I€don't€think€isÏnecessary€to€prove€at€this€point€what€the€defense€is€trying€toÏprove€in€this€case,€which€is€the€fact€that€the€defendant€knewÏthat€she'd€had€an€abortion.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓOn€appeal€the€defendant€has€advanced€no€basis€upon€which€to€hold€that€the€trialÏcourt's€ruling€in€this€regard€was€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€The€trial€court's€ruling€that€theÏparticulars€of€the€abortion€procedures€were€not€relevant€mitigating€factors€is€supportedÏby€the€œrecord.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.›€ðð€39„13„204(c).€€The€evidence€in€the€record,€in€particular€theÏdefendant's€testimony€in€the€guilt€phase,€reveals€that€the€òòfactóó€of€the€victim's€abortionsÏmay€have€affected€the€defendant's€mental€state,€but€not€the€particulars€of€suchÏprocedures.€€Accordingly,€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€the€ground€that€theÏtrial€court€unconstitutionally€deprived€the€jury€of€mitigating€circumstances.€€òòSeeóó€òòSmithóó,Ï857€S.W.2d€at€17„18.€€ÌÌà@ àò ò(13)à8 àó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€death€sentence€is€excessive€andÏdisproportionate€given€his€mental€impairments,€including€their€relationship€to€theÏð ðaggravating€aspect€of€his€criminal€behavior,€i.e.,€the€use€of€fireðð€in€his€criminal€actions.€ÏPursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(D)€(Supp.€1996),€we€are€obligated€to€assessÏwhether€the€death€sentence€in€this€case€is€excessive€or€disproportionate€to€the€penaltyÏimposed€in€similar€cases,€considering€both€the€nature€of€the€crime€and€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€draws€his€argument€substantially€from€the€conclusions€heÏclaims€were€given€by€Dr.€Meyer.€€However,€it€is€apparent€that€the€jury€was€fullyÏapprised€of€Dr.€Meyerððs€training,€evaluation€of€the€defendant,€and€opinions€formed.€€ItÏfound,€though,€that€the€existing€aggravating€circumstances€in€the€context€of€theÏevidence€surrounding€the€killing€outweighed€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€existingÏmitigating€circumstances.€€We€believe€the€evidence€supports€such€a€view€and€we€areÏunable€to€accept€all€of€Dr.€Meyerððs€testimony€at€face€value,€as€the€defendant€wouldÏhave€us€do.€€ÌÌà àFinally,€we€note€that€we€have€reviewed€many€other€cases€resulting€inÏeither€death€or€life€sentences€and€we€are€unable€to€say€that€our€comparison€leads€usÏto€believe€that€the€death€sentence€is€inappropriate€in€this€case.€€The€circumstances€inÏwhich€the€victim€was€doused€œwith›€gasoline€and€set€afire€and€left€to€burn€certainlyÏshowed€œtorture,›€œdepravity€and€cruel€physical€abuse.›€€œThe›€victim€was€left€to€sufferÍexcruciating€pain€before€her€death.€€In€consideration€of€all€the€evidence,€we€are€unableÏto€conclude€that€the€death€penalty€was€either€arbitrary,€excessive€or€disproportionateÏto€a€penalty€imposed€in€other€crimes.ÌÌò òà@ à€€€(14)ó óÌÓ#` °‚XƒXDp”X#Óà àThe€defendant's€final€issue€consists€of€numerous€constitutional€attacksÏagainst€the€Tennessee€Death€Penalty€statute,€T.C.A.€ðððð€39„13„204€and€„206,€underÏthe€Fifth,€Sixth,€Eighth,€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution;ÏArticle€I,€Sections€8,€9,€16,€and€17€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution;€and€Article€II,€SectionÏ2€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€His€contentions,€generally,€are:€(A)€that€the€statuteÏfails€to€narrow€in€a€meaningful€manner€the€class€of€death€eligible€defendants,€(B)€thatÏthe€death€sentence€in€Tennessee€is€imposed€arbitrarily€and€capriciously,€(C)€thatÏdeath€by€electrocution€is€cruel€and€unusual€punishment,€and€(D)€that€the€manner€ofÏconducting€a€proportionality€review€of€death€sentences€in€Tennessee€isÏconstitutionally€inadequate.€€ÌÌà@ àò ò(a)ó óÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€death€penalty€provisions€fail€to€narrow€in€aÏmeaningful€manner€the€class€of€death€eligible€defendants€in€Tennessee.€€He€assertsÏthree€arguments€in€support€of€this€position.€€First,€he€contends€that€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance€in€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„13„204(i)(6),›€that€the€murder€was€committed€"for€theÍpurpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€theÏdefendant€or€another,"€duplicates€the€felony€murder€aggravating€factor€in€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„13„204(i)(7)€(1991).›€€His€claim€is€without€merit.€€Although€the€state€attempted€to€proveÏfactor€(6)€in€this€case,€and€the€jury€was€so€instructed,€the€jury€rejected€it.€€Moreover,€theÏjury's€finding€of€factor€(7)€has€been€held€to€be€proper€for€a€conviction€of€premeditatedÏfirst€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€346.€ÌÌà àSecond,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€aggravating€circumstance€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5),€that€the€murder€was€"especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€inÏthat€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produceÏdeath,"€is€unconstitutionally€vague€and€overbroad.€€Our€supreme€court€rejected€similarÏcontentions,€however,€in€analyzing€the€former€version€of€this€factor,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5),€which€read:€"[t]he€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€itÏinvolved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind."€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€181„82Ï(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Barberóó,€753€S.W.2d€659,€670€(Tenn.€œ1988);›€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,Ï690€S.W.2d€517,€526„30€(Tenn.€1985).€€Likewise,€it€has€reviewed€the€current€version€ofÏthe€statute€and€found€it€to€be€constitutional.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€24„26Ï(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌà àThird,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€aggravating€factors€in€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(2),€(i)(5),€(i)(6),€and€(i)(7)€fail€to€narrow€the€class€of€death€eligible€defendantsÍbecause€they€combine€to€encompass€the€majority€of€the€homicides€in€this€jurisdiction.€ÏThere€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€support€the€defendant's€argument.€€Moreover,€(i)(2)Ïand€(i)(6)€do€not€pertain€to€this€case.€€Factor€(i)(2)€was€not€relied€upon€by€the€state€and€œÇfactor›€(i)(6)€was€rejected€by€the€jury.€€Thus€the€claim€with€respect€to€these€factors€isÏwithout€merit.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€œòòState›€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€87€œ(Tenn.€1994);›€òòState€v.ÏœCauthernóó,›€778€S.W.2d€39,€47€(Tenn.€œ1989).€›ÌÌà@ àò ò(b)ó óÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€death€penalty€in€Tennessee€is€imposedÏcapriciously€and€arbitrarily.× ƒS ××  ×€€He€asserts€ten€arguments€in€support€of€this€contention.€ÏFirst,€he€complains€that€the€prosecutors€in€this€state€have€unlimited€discretion€as€toÏwhether€to€seek€the€death€penalty€in€a€given€case.€€Second,€the€defendant€argues€thatÏthe€prosecutor's€unfettered€discretion€to€subject€any€defendant€charged€with€firstÏdegree€murder€to€a€capital€sentencing€hearing€constitutes€an€improper€delegation€ofÏjudicial€power€and€of€legislative€power€in€violation€of€Article€II,€Section€2€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€€Third,€he€argues€that€such€discretion€violates€state€andÏfederal€guarantees€of€equal€protection€and€results€in€the€wanton€and€freakishÏimposition€of€the€death€penalty€that€was€condemned€in€òòFurman€v.€Georgiaóó,€408€U.S.Ï238,€92€S.€Ct.€2726€(1972).€€Fourth,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€failure€to€create€aÏuniform€system€of€jury€selection€results€in€unequal€treatment€for€capital€defendants€thatÏnecessarily€results€in€the€arbitrary€and€capricious€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€ÏFifth,€he€argues€that€the€manner€of€selecting€ð ðdeath€qualifiedðð€jurors€results€in€juriesÍthat€are€prone€to€conviction.€€Sixth,€the€defendant€argues€that€capital€defendantsÏshould€be€allowed€to€address€œjurorsðð›€popular€ð ðmisconceptionsðð€regarding€paroleÏeligibility,€the€cost€of€incarceration€versus€the€cost€of€execution,€general€deterrenceÏand€the€method€of€execution.€€Seventh,€he€argues€that€it€is€constitutional€error€toÏinstruct€juries€that€they€must€agree€unanimously€in€order€to€impose€a€life€sentenceÏwithout€telling€juries€the€effect€of€a€nonunanimous€verdict.€€Eighth,€he€argues€that€theÏTennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instructions€create€a€reasonable€likelihood€that€jurors€believeÏthat€they€must€unanimously€agree€on€the€existence€of€any€mitigating€factors.€€Ninth,€theÏdefendant€argues€that€the€Tennessee€death€penalty€statute€fails€to€require€that€the€juryÏmake€the€ultimate€determination€of€whether€death€is€appropriate€in€a€specific€case.€ÏAnd€tenth,€the€defendant€submits€that€it€is€constitutional€error€to€deny€the€defendant€theÏright€to€give€final€closing€argument€in€the€penalty€phase€of€a€capital€trial€based€uponÏhis€contention€that€once€an€aggravating€circumstance€is€proven,€the€burden€of€proofÏshifts€to€the€defendant€to€present€mitigating€evidence.€€€€€ÌÌà àRelative€to€the€defendantððs€first€argument€that€prosecutors€have€unlimitedÏdiscretion€as€to€whether€to€seek€the€death€penalty€in€a€given€case,€our€supreme€courtÏhas€held€that€opportunities€for€discretionary€action€that€inhere€in€the€processing€of€aÏmurder€case,€including€the€authority€of€the€prosecutor€to€select€those€persons€whomÏhe€or€she€wishes€to€prosecute€for€a€capital€offense,€do€"not€render€the€death€penaltyÏunconstitutional€on€the€theory€that€the€opportunities€for€discretionary€action€renderÍimposition€of€the€death€penalty€freakish€or€arbitrary."€€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€86Ïœ(quoting›€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€428€U.S.€153,€96€S.€Ct.€2909,€2937€(1976)).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóóÏòòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€536„38€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(rejecting€similarÏclaim€in€post„conviction€context).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà àSecond,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€discretion€accorded€theÏprosecution€is€an€improper€delegation€of€legislative€and€judicial€power€in€violation€ofÏArticle€II,€Section€2€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€defendant€makes€reference€toÏcosts€and€expenditures€that€result€from€a€prosecutor's€decision€to€seek€the€deathÏpenalty€and€argues€that€such€appropriations€must€be€made€by€the€legislature.€€HeÏdoes€not,€however,€offer€support€for€his€contention€in€the€record.€€The€state€does€notÏaddress€this€issue€in€its€brief.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Brackettóó,€869€S.W.2d€936€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€theÏdefendant€argued€that€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€5(a),€which€allows€the€prosecution€to€object€toÏthe€defendant's€waiver€of€a€grand€jury€investigation€and€jury€trial€so€as€to€submit€to€theÏjurisdiction€of€the€general€sessions€court,€violated€Article€II,€Sections€1€and€2.€€ThisÏcourt€noted:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àœà àArticle›€II,€ðð1€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€providesÏthat€the€powers€of€government€are€to€be€divided€into€theÏLegislative,€Executive,€and€Judicial€Departments.€€InÏgeneral,€the€"legislative€power"€is€the€authority€to€œmake,›Ïorder,€and€repeal€law;€the€"executive€power"€is€the€authorityÍto€œadminister€and€enforce›€law;€and€the€"judicial€power"€isÏthe€authority€to€œinterpret€and€apply€law.›€€The€TennesseeÏœconstitutional›€provision€prohibits€an€encroachment€by€anyÏof€the€departments€upon€the€powers,€functions€andÏprerogatives€of€the€œothers.›€The€branches€of€government,Ïhowever,€are€guided€by€the€doctrine€of€checks€andÏbalances;€the€doctrine€of€separation€of€powers€is€notÏabsolute....ÌÌòòÓÓÓ  ÓBrackettóó,€869€S.W.2d€at€939€(citations€omitted).€€The€court€also€noted€that€Article€II,ÏSection€2€states,€"No€person€or€persons€belonging€to€one€of€these€departments€shallÏexercise€any€of€the€powers€properly€belonging€to€either€of€the€others,€except€in€theÏcases€herein€directed€or€permitted."€€òòBrackettóó,€869€S.W.2d€at€œ940›€n.3.€€In€addressingÏthe€defendant's€claim,€the€court€noted€that€the€supreme€court€has€the€authority€to€enactÏrules€for€our€courts,€T.C.A.€ðð€16„3„402,€and€that€the€rules€are€approved€by€resolution€ofÏthe€General€Assembly.€€T.C.A.€ðð€16„3„404.€Thus,€the€court€concluded:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àThe€rule€to€which€the€defendant€objects€in€this€instanceÏwas,€of€course,€initiated€by€the€œSupreme›€œCourt›€as€a€meansÏof€improving€the€criminal€procedure€in€this€state.€€BecauseÏthe€judiciary€promulgated€and€the€Legislature€approved€theÏrule€granting€the€prosecution€the€right€to€reject€a€non„juryÏproceeding€in€the€general€sessions€court,€we€find€noÏintrusion€by€either€of€the€other€branches€of€government.ÌÌÓÓòòÓ  ÓBrackettóó,€869€S.W.2d€at€939„40.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€reasoning€of€òòBrackettóó€applies€here€as€well.€€TheÏdistrict€attorney€general€is€given€statutory€authority€to€prosecute€criminal€cases€in€his€orÏher€jurisdiction.€€T.C.A.€ðð€8„7„103(1).€€When€the€death€penalty€will€be€sought€in€a€firstÍdegree€murder€case,€the€prosecutor€must€afford€notice€to€the€defendant€of€the€intent€toÏseek€the€death€penalty,€as€well€as€notice€regarding€the€aggravating€factors€that€will€beÏrelied€upon.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.3(b).€€Thereafter,€the€proceedings€are€governed€byÏthe€provisions€passed€by€the€Legislature€in€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204.€€The€defendant€in€thisÏcase€has€not€shown,€nor€has€he€cited€authority€to€show,€that€this€functioning€violatesÏthe€separation€of€powers€doctrine€under€Tennessee€law.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àThird,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€death€penalty€statute€has€beenÏimposed€discriminatorily€on€the€basis€of€economics,€race,€gender€and€geographicÏregion€in€the€state.€€This€argument€has€been€rejected€by€the€supreme€court.€€òòSeeóóÏòòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87€n.5;€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€268;€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€23;ÏòòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€196€(Tenn.€œ1992).€€Moreover,›€the€record€is€devoid€ofÏevidence€indicative€of€an€individualized€showing€of€improper€discrimination€withÏregard€to€the€sentencing€of€the€defendant€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€œòòMcCleskey›€v.€Kempóó,Ï481€U.S.€279,€292„93,€107€S.€Ct.€1756,€1767€(1987);€òòCooperóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€531.ÌÌà àFourth,€the€defendant€submits€that€the€failure€to€create€a€uniform€systemÏof€jury€selection€results€in€unequal€treatment€for€capital€defendants€and€necessarilyÏresults€in€arbitrary€and€capricious€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€€Specifically,€theÏdefendant€contends€that€all€capital€defendants€should€be€guaranteed€individualÍsequestered€voir€dire€and€a€questioning€process€which€would€maximize€theÏprospective€jurors'€candor.€ÌÌà àOur€supreme€court€has€rejected€the€argument€that€the€lack€of€uniformÏprocedures€mandating€individual€sequestered€voir€dire€during€jury€selection€rendersÏthe€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€arbitrary€and€capricious.€€In€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€atÏ269,€the€court€concluded,€without€discussion,€that€this€argument€had€been€previouslyÏrejected€in€òòCaughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€at€542.€€Further,€the€court€has€said€that€the€"ultimateÏgoal€of€voir€dire€is€to€insure€that€jurors€are€competent,€unbiased€and€impartial,€and€theÏdecision€of€how€to€conduct€voir€dire€of€prospective€jurors€rests€within€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court."€€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€269.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€atÏ180.€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€has€not€challenged€any€of€the€jurors€selected€or€theÏmanner€in€which€the€trial€court€conducted€voir€dire.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àFifth,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€manner€of€selecting€"death€qualified"Ïjurors€results€in€juries€that€are€prone€to€conviction.€€In€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,Ï246€(Tenn.€1990),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€498€U.S.€1007€(1990),€however,€our€supreme€court€€€€€Ïstated€that€"[t]his€argument€has€been€rejected€by€both€the€Tennessee€and€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court."€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Harbisonóó,€704€S.W.2d€314,€318€(Tenn.Ïœ1986).€€The€defendant€has€not€offered€any€evidence€with€which€to€substantiate€hisÍclaim,€nor€has€he€presented€a€principled€basis€with€which€to€distinguish€the€supremeÏcourt€holdings€in€this€area.ÌÌà àSixth,€the€defendant€contends€that€capital€defendants€should€be€allowedÏto€address€jurors'€popular€"misconceptions"€concerning€parole€eligibility,€the€cost€ofÏincarceration€versus€the€cost€of€execution,€general€deterrence,€and€the€method€ofÏexecution€in€order€to€avoid€arbitrary€decision€making.€€This€argument,€however,€hasÏbeen€rejected€on€several€occasions€by€our€supreme€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€atÏ179;€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€86„87;€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€268.€€Moreover,Ïthe€defendant€did€not€present€any€evidence€with€respect€to€his€contentions.ÌÌà àAs€his€seventh€argument,€the€defendant€submits€that€it€is€constitutionalÏerror€to€instruct€juries€that€they€must€agree€unanimously€in€order€to€impose€a€lifeÏsentence€and€to€prohibit€juries€from€being€told€the€effect€of€a€nonunanimous€verdict.€ÏòòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(h).€€However,€this€contention€also€has€been€repeatedlyÏrejected€by€the€supreme€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87;€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€atÏ268;€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€22„23;€òòBarberóó,€753€S.W.2d€at€670„71.€ÌÌà àRelative€to€this€issue,€the€defendant€contends€that€requiring€the€jury€toÏagree€unanimously€to€a€life€verdict€violates€the€holding€in€òòMcKoy€v.€North€Carolinaóó,Ï494€U.S.€433,€110€S.€Ct.€1227€(1990),€and€in€òòMills€v.€Marylandóó,€486€U.S.€367,€108€S.ÍCt.€1860€(1988).€€The€claim€has€been€held€to€be€without€merit€under€Tennessee€law.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87;€òòThompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€at€250;€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€718ÏS.W.2d€241,€249€(Tenn.€1986).€€In€òòBrimmeróó,€the€court€noted€that€òòMcKoyóó€and€òòMillsóó€standÏfor€the€principle€that€any€requirement€that€the€jury€must€unanimously€find€a€mitigatingÏcircumstance€before€it€can€be€considered€violates€the€Eighth€Amendment.€€The€courtÏwent€on€to€state€that€the€unanimous€òòverdictóó€instruction€does€not€violate€theseÏprinciples.€€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòTeelóó,€793€S.W.2d€at€252.€€In€anyÏevent,€the€trial€court€in€the€present€case€instructed€the€jury€that€there€was€noÏrequirement€for€jury€unanimity€or€agreement€as€to€any€particular€mitigator.€€Also,€itÏfollowed€with€instructions€for€each€juror€to€decide€the€case€individually€and€for€each€toÏknow€that€they€were€òònotóó€required€to€reach€a€unanimous€verdict€regarding€mitigators€orÏtheir€weight.€€Thus,€the€concerns€expressed€in€òòMcKoyóó€and€òòMillsóó€are€not€present€in€thisÏcase.€€ÌÌà àEighth,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€Tennessee€Pattern€JuryÏInstructions€create€a€reasonable€likelihood€that€jurors€are€led€to€believe€they€mustÏunanimously€agree€on€the€existence€of€any€mitigating€factors.€€The€supreme€court€hasÏrepeatedly€rejected€this€argument.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87;€òòCazesóó,€875ÏS.W.2d€at€268.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€"[t]here€is€noÏrequirement€of€jury€unanimity€as€to€any€particular€mitigating€circumstance,€or€that€youÏagree€on€the€same€mitigating€circumstance."€€It€is€a€well„established€rule€in€TennesseeÍthat€a€jury€is€presumed€to€have€followed€the€instructions€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.ÏLawsonóó,€695€S.W.2d€202,€204€(Tenn.€1985).ÌÌà àNinth,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€statute€fails€to€require€that€the€juryÏmake€the€ultimate€determination€of€whether€death€is€the€appropriate€penalty€in€aÏspecific€case.€€This€argument€has€likewise€been€rejected€by€the€supreme€court.€€òòSeeóóÏòòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87;€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€22.€€The€defendant's€claim€that€thereÏis€no€weighing€process€for€aggravating€and€mitigating€factors€is€also€without€merit.€€InÏòòState€v.€Baneóó,€853€S.W.2d€483,€488€(Tenn.€1993),€the€supreme€court€said€that€"aÏspecific€method€for€balancing€mitigating€and€aggravating€factors€in€a€capitalÏsentencing€proceeding€is€not€constitutionally€required."ÌÌà àAs€his€tenth€and€final€argument€in€support€of€his€contention€that€the€deathÏpenalty€is€imposed€arbitrarily€and€capriciously€in€Tennessee,€the€defendant€contendsÏthat€once€an€aggravating€circumstance€is€proven,€the€burden€of€proof€shifts€to€theÏdefendant€to€present€mitigating€evidence.€€Therefore,€the€defendant€argues,€it€isÏconstitutional€error€to€deny€the€defense€the€right€to€give€the€final€closing€argument€inÏthe€penalty€phase.€€This€issue€has€been€rejected€by€the€supreme€court€on€numerousÏoccasions.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87€n.5;€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€269;€òòSmithóó,Ï857€S.W.2d€at€24;€òòCaughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€at€542.€€In€òòSmithóó,€the€court€said€that€theÏ"order€[of€argument]€is€not€inherently€prejudicial€to€the€defendant€or€favorable€to€theÍstate€in€its€use€at€the€sentencing€stage€of€a€death€penalty€proceeding."€€òòSmithóó,€857ÏS.W.2d€at€24.ÌÌÇ›à@ àò ò(c)ó óÌà àIn€another€challenge€to€the€death€penalty€statute,€the€defendant€arguesÏthat€electrocution€is€cruel€and€unusual€punishment,€therefore,€violating€the€EighthÏAmendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€16€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€€Our€supreme€court€rejected€this€argument€in€òòBlackóó,€815ÏS.W.2d€at€179,€and€has€since€reaffirmed€its€holding€on€several€occasions.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€737€(Tenn.€œ1994);›€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€268;€òòHowellóó,€868ÏS.W.2d€at€258;€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€23;€òòBaneóó,€853€S.W.2d€at€489.ÌÌà@ àò ò(d)ó óÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€appellate€review€process€in€death€penaltyÏcases€is€constitutionally€inadequate€in€its€application.€€He€contends€that€the€appellateÏreview€process€is€not€constitutionally€meaningful€because€the€appellate€courts€cannotÏreweigh€proof€due€to€the€absence€of€written€findings€concerning€mitigatingÏcircumstances,€because€the€information€relied€upon€by€the€appellate€courts€forÏcomparative€review€is€inadequate€and€incomplete€and€because€the€appellate€courts'Ïmethodology€of€review€is€flawed.€€This€argument€has€been€specifically€rejected€by€ourÏsupreme€court€on€numerous€occasions.€€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€œ270„71;›€œòòseeóó›€òòalsoóó€òòStateÏv.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€77€(Tenn.€œ1992);€òòBarberóó,›€753€S.W.2d€at€664.€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€statutorily€mandatedÏproportionality€review€is€conducted€in€violation€of€due€process€and€the€law€of€the€land.€ÏHe€argues€that€there€is€no€comprehensive€procedure€for€gathering€information€inÏcapital€cases€and€no€published€set€of€criteria€for€the€review.€€In€support€of€his€claim,€theÏdefendant€argues€that€since€the€promulgation€of€the€current€statute€in€1977,€theÏsupreme€court€has€found€no€death€sentence€to€be€imposed€in€a€disproportionateÏmanner.× ƒT ××  ×€€ÌÌà àAs€previously€noted,€the€appellate€review€provided€for€in€the€statute€hasÏbeen€held€to€afford€a€meaningful€proportionality€review.€€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87„88;€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€270„71.€€Moreover,€our€supreme€court€has€relied€upon€andÏupheld€the€use€of€trial€court€reports€in€capital€cases€pursuant€to€Rule€12,€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€Rules.€€In€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€77,€the€court€noted€that€it€hasÏconsidered€the€information€in€such€reports€and€that,€because€no€two€cases€orÏdefendants€are€exactly€alike,€each€review€for€proportionality€must€be€based€on€theÏindividual€defendant€and€the€nature€of€the€crime.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€270„71€(Rule€12€report€not€prepared;€supreme€court's€review€for€proportionality€based€onÏits€thorough€review€of€the€record€and€Rule€12€reports€in€other€cases).€€Accordingly,€theÏdefendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€basis.ÌÌà@ àò òCONCLUSIONÌà àó óIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€theÏdefendant's€conviction€for€first€degree€murder€and€sentence€of€death€are€affirmed.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àòòà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌ€€ò òÌÌó ó