ÿWPC: …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0l 0Dt w@¸ U:ø 0J2 0T| 0^Ð 0h. 0r– 0| 0†„ 0 1uš 0d Bs D3U>à 0@U *AB)kDC” AM×$|?»Ò]çv~DvÓ AO•Æä 0Dª D/î B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡z!ppppdp3|x~#((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó j#Vk#Dl#Dm#n#Vo#p#Dq#r#Ó€~#_"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ! ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd€-0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òNovember€12,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó rÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔSmothers€pled€guilty€to€first€degree€murder€in€exchange€for€a€life€sentence€à àÏwithout€the€possibility€of€parole.€€He€then€testified€at€appellantððs€trial€as€a€witness€à àÏfor€the€State.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔThese€items€were€later€recovered€from€appellantððs€house€after€she€consentedÏto€à à€a€search.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔWhen€co„defendant€Ramsey€was€arrested,€he€was€wearing€the€victimððs€black€à àÏtennis€shoes.Ì SÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔAppellant€was€also€indicted€for€the€first€degree€premeditated€murder€of€Brooks.€Ïà àHowever,€at€trial,€the€State€elected€to€proceed€only€on€the€felony€murder€count.€ÌPtPt HHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÑ7€@,XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€.ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ ` °œXÓÙ€€ÙßL€120;+'h|Æä` Å `€€Lß›Ìà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌÌà@ àòòAT€JACKSONóóÌÌà@ àMARCH€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNO.€02C01„9412„CC„00265Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppelleeà àà àà à)à àœHENRY›€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JULIAN€P.€GUINN,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGE€ÌTERESA€DEION€SMITH€HARRIS,à à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(First€Degree€Felony€Murder)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellant.ÌÌòòÌFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌSteven€L.€Westà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌWest€&€Westà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€400à àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌMcKenzie,€TN€38201à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌShipp€R.€Weemsà àà àà àà àà àChristina€S.€ShevalierÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌP.O.€Box€160à àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌCharlotte,€TN€37036à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€Gus€RadfordÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à24th€Judicial€DistrictÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€686Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHuntingdon,€TN€38344ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àEleanor€CahillÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóà àÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÓÓòòÌÓ Ð ÓÇà@ àò òOPINIONó óóóÌAppellant,€Teresa€Deion€Smith€Harris,€appeals€as€of€right€from€her€convictionÏfor€first€degree€felony€murder.€€She€was€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment€without€theÏpossibility€of€parole€by€a€Henry€County€jury,€after€a€change€of€venue€from€CarrollÏCounty.€€Appellant€raises€thirteen€issues€in€her€brief.€€She€argues€that:ÌÓÓà à(1)€the€indictment€was€improper€because€it€failed€to€charge€the€appellant€withÏà àcriminal€responsibility€where€the€judge€instructed€the€jury€on€this€œaccompliceÏà àliability;›ÌÌà à(2)€since€the€jury€was€instructed€on€the€law€regarding€criminal€responsibility,Ïà àcriminal€facilitation€should€have€been€charged€as€a€lesser€included€offense;ÌÌà à(3)€the€admission€of€post„death€facts€was€error€and€denied€the€appellant€a€fairÏà àtrial;ÌÌà à(4)€the€trial€court€improperly€sentenced€appellant€to€life€without€parole€for€threeÏà àreasons:ÌÌà à(a)€the€failure€of€the€jury€to€completely€fill€in€the€verdict€form€with€all€theÏà àà àelements€of€the€first€aggravating€factor;Ìà à(b)€the€second€aggravating€factor€found€by€the€jury€subjects€appellant€toÏà àà àdouble€jeopardy€because€it€is€inherent€in€the€offense;€andÌà à(c)€the€trial€court€failed€to€send€the€jury€back€to€deliberate€further€uponÏà àà àtheir€announced€erroneous€findings;ÌÌà à(5)€the€trial€court€conducted€voir€dire€in€a€manner€inconsistent€with€Rule€24€ofÏà àthe€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure;ÌÌà à(6)€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowed€application€of€the€ð ðespecially€heinous,Ïà àcruel€or€atrociousðð€aggravating€factor;ÌÌà à(7)€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowed€application€of€the€ð ðavoiding,€interferingÏà àwith€or€preventing€an€arrest€or€prosecutionðð€aggravating€factor;ÌÌà à(8)€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€district€attorney€to€exercise€his€discretionÏà àto€pursue€a€charge€of€first€degree€murder;ÌÌà à(9)€the€district€attorney€made€improper€comment€during€closing€statement€ofÏthe€à àguilt€phase;ÌÌà à(10)€the€district€attorney€made€improper€comment€during€closing€argument€atÏà àthe€sentencing€phase;ÌÌà à(11)€trial€judge€erred€in€not€recusing€himself€due€to€partiality€towards€a€StateððsÏà àwitness;ÌÌà à(12)€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€suppress€statements€made€by€appellant;Ïà àand€ÌÌà à(13)€the€trial€court€denied€certain€citizens€their€right€to€serve€on€a€jury€based€onÏà àtheir€religious€reservations€about€imposing€the€death€penalty.ÌÌÓÓWe€find€that€no€reversible€error€was€committed€by€the€trial€court€in€regard€toÏany€of€these€issues.€€We€therefore€affirm€the€appellantððs€conviction€of€first€degreeÏfelony€murder€and€her€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€without€parole.Ì€Ìà@ àò òFACTSó óÌOn€July€30,€1993,€appellant,€her€live„in€boyfriend,€Walter€Smothers× ƒ3 ××  ×,€andÏneighbor€Stacy€Ramsey€spent€the€day€at€appellantððs€house€drinking€tequila,€whiskey,Ïand€œbeer,›€and€smoking€marijuana.€€Testimony€indicated€that€excessive€amounts€ofÍalcohol€were€consumed€by€all.€€The€proof€showed€that€Smothers€was€also€takingÏValium.€€Throughout€the€day,€appellantððs€ex„boyfriend,€David€Hampton,€had€calledÏher€residence€several€times.€€Smothers€had€occasion€to€answer€the€phone€once€andÏhe€argued€with€Hampton€about€appellant.€€It€was€decided€that€they€would€meet€andÏfight€in€order€to€settle€the€matter.€€There€was€conflicting€testimony€about€when€thisÏfight€was€to€occur.€€Appellant€told€Smothers€that€she€ð ðwould€like€to€get€himÏ[Hampton]ðð,€apparently€because€Hampton€had€been€abusive€to€her€in€the€past.€€LaterÏthat€evening,€Smothers€and€appellant€decided€to€go€to€Hamptonððs€house.€TheyÏasked€Ramsey€to€go€with€them€and€Smothers€told€him€to€bring€his€shotgun.€ÏAppellant€testified€that€she€heard€Smothers€say€this.€€Ramsey€got€his€.20€gaugeÏshotgun€and€the€trio€headed€out€in€his€old€model€pickup€truck.€€Appellant€knew€theÏshotgun€was€in€the€truck€when€they€left.ÌAfter€dropping€appellantððs€two€young€children€at€their€grandmotherððs€house,Ïthe€three€drove€around€Carroll€County€for€a€while,€drinking€and€looking€forÏHamptonððs€house.€€Appellant€testified€that€she€knew€exactly€where€Hamptonððs€houseÏwas€located,€but€was€afraid€to€lead€Smothers€there.€€At€one€point,€they€stopped€inÏYuma€and€tried€to€buy€some€oil€for€Ramseyððs€ailing€truck.€€However,€all€the€storesÏwere€closed.€€They€continued€in€their€search€for€Hamptonððs€house.€€On€Highway€114Ïnear€Hollow€Rock,€the€truck€broke€down€and€the€trio€was€stranded.€€It€was€decidedÏamong€the€three€that€they€would€stop€the€next€vehicle€on€the€road€and€take€it€from€theÍdriver€so€they€could€have€a€ride.€€Smothers€testified€that€they€also€discussed€theÏpossibility€that€they€would€have€to€kill€the€person€they€stopped.€€However,€appellantÏdenied€that€they€ever€had€such€a€discussion.ÌSmothers€urged€appellant€to€step€into€the€road€and€flag€down€the€nextÏvehicle€because€she€was€a€young€woman€and€a€vehicle€would€surely€stop€for€her.€ÏWhen€the€headlights€of€an€approaching€car€were€visible,€appellant€got€out€of€theÏtruck€and€flagged€down€the€vehicle.€€It€was€a€small€pickup€truck€driven€by€nineteen„year„old€Dennis€Brooks,€Jr.,€who€had€just€gotten€off€work€at€Subway€and€wasÏtraveling€home.€€Testimony€reflected€it€was€about€12:30€a.m.€€When€the€truckÏstopped,€Ramsey€and€Smothers€emerged€from€behind€Ramseyððs€truck,€where€theyÏhad€been€hiding.€€While€holding€the€shotgun€on€Brooks,€Smothers€ordered€him€out€ofÏthe€truck€and€Ramsey€threw€him€to€the€ground.€€Appellant€ran€up€to€him,€hit€him€twoÏor€three€times€in€the€back€and€told€him€to€œlie›€down€and€cursed€him.€€AppellantÏclaimed€that€she€did€this€in€an€effort€to€make€him€be€quiet€so€that€Smothers€would€notÏhurt€him.€€This€commotion€was€loud€enough€to€be€heard€by€residents€of€a€nearbyÏhome€who€were€awakened€by€the€shouting.€€ÌSmothers€demanded€money€from€Brooks,€took€his€wallet€and€made€him€getÏin€the€back€of€his€pickup.€€Appellant€and€Ramsey€got€in€the€cab€of€the€truck€andÏRamsey€began€to€drive.€€Smothers€then€decided€to€get€into€the€front€of€the€truck.€€HeÏtold€Ramsey€to€slow€down€and€told€appellant€to€hold€the€gun€on€Brooks€while€heÍmoved€into€the€front.€€Appellant€turned€around€in€the€seat€and€held€the€gun€on€BrooksÏthrough€the€truckððs€sliding€glass€rear€window.€€Testimony€diverges€as€to€whatÏoccurred€next.€€Smothers€testified€that€while€appellant€was€holding€the€gun,€he€toldÏRamsey€to€speed€up.€€As€he€did€so,€the€truck€jerked€and€the€gun€went€off,€shootingÏBrooks€in€the€hip.€€According€to€appellantððs€testimony,€she€had€given€the€gun€back€toÏSmothers,€turned€back€around€in€the€truck€seat€and€then€heard€the€gun€go€off.€ÏœAppellant€stated€she›€did€not€see€the€gun€go€off,€but€turned€around€when€she€heard€itÏand€Smothers€told€her€it€was€an€accident.€€ÌUndaunted,€Ramsey€continued€to€drive€the€truck,€still€searching€forÏHamptonððs€house.€€Appellant€testified€that€Smothers€said€they€would€take€Brooks€toÏthe€hospital.€€Nothing€else€in€the€record€corroborates€this€intent,€which€theirÏsubsequent€actions€belied.€€When€Brooks€saw€the€lights€of€the€next€town,€he€beganÏscreaming€for€help.€€Afraid€that€someone€would€hear€Brooks,€Smothers€put€the€gunÏunder€his€chin€and€fired.€€According€to€Smothersðð€testimony,€either€somebody€or€aÏvoice€inside€his€head€told€him€to€shoot€the€victim.€€Appellant€testified€that€she€andÏRamsey€were€shocked€by€this€and€did€not€know€what€was€happening.€€WhileÏspeeding€through€Hollow€Rock,€they€were€pursued€by€a€police€officer.€€However,€theyÏwere€able€to€evade€the€officer€and€eventually€traveled€back€to€appellantððs€house.ÌThe€trio€first€decided€to€bury€the€body€and€the€truck€because€they€had€accessÏto€a€backhoe.€€However,€this€plan€was€thwarted€when€they€learned€that€the€backhoeÍhad€a€flat€tire.€€While€at€appellantððs€house,€they€collected€several€items,€including€aÏshovel€and€an€ax.€€Appellant€brought€a€large€butcher€knife€from€her€kitchen€to€add€toÏthe€collection.€€They€then€drove€the€truck€to€a€deserted€area€and€mutilated€BrooksððÏbody.€€Medical€evidence€at€trial€showed€that€both€of€Brooksðð€legs€were€severed,€asÏwell€as€his€right€arm€and€penis.€€In€addition,€his€body€had€been€stabbed€multipleÏtimes.€€The€chest€cavity€had€also€been€cut€open€and€his€heart€removed.€€The€heartÏwas€found€inside€the€abdominal€cavity.€€Smothers€testified€that€all€three€participatedÏin€the€mutilation.€€Smothers€and€Ramsey€each€cut€off€one€leg€and€Ramsey€severedÏthe€arm.€€Appellant€admitted€to€stabbing€the€body.€€Smothers€also€stated€thatÏappellant€ð ðsaid€she€wanted€his€heartðð€and€he€removed€it€at€her€request.€€Each€of€themÏheld€the€heart€and€pressed€it€to€their€lips.€€Appellant€denied€all€participation€in€theÏmutilation,€except€stabbing€the€body€once€at€Smothersðð€direction.€€She€said€that€sheÏheld€the€heart€and€touched€her€lips€to€it€only€because€Smothers€instructed€her€to€doÏso.€€Medical€testimony€also€proved€that€either€shot€was€sufficient€to€cause€death€ofÏthe€victim.€€The€mutilation€conclusively€occurred€post„death.€€ÌAfter€these€events,€the€three€went€back€to€appellantððs€house€again€andÏgathered€gasoline€and€lantern€fuel€to€burn€the€body€and€the€truck.€€Neither€SmothersÏnor€appellant€could€remember€how€they€reached€this€decision.€€Ramsey€andÏSmothers€drove€in€Brooksðð€truck€and€appellant€followed€in€her€own€car.€€They€droveÏthe€truck€from€Langford€Store€Road€into€an€empty€field€and€set€it€on€fire€with€theÍmutilated€body€inside€the€cab.€€Proof€at€trial€also€showed€that€they€removed€the€radioÏand€speakers€from€the€truck,€as€well€as€several€personal€items€belonging€to€theÏvictim× ƒ4 ××  ×,€before€burning€the€truck.€€€Appellant€then€drove€them€back€to€her€houseÏwhere€they€all€showered€and€she€washed€their€clothes.€€The€day€following€the€nightÏof€the€murder,€appellant€and€Smothers€returned€to€the€scene€and€set€the€truck€afireÏagain€because€it€had€not€completely€burned.€€That€day€the€trio€also€made€up€a€storyÏabout€the€previous€nightððs€events,€ð ðpartiedðð€at€Ramseyððs€house€and€went€out€drinkingÏat€Caseyððs€Bar.€€The€owner€testified€to€their€presence€at€the€bar€starting€at€about€8:00Ïp.m.€€He€described€appellantððs€behavior€as€more€active€than€usual.€€She€was€playingÏpool€and€singing€with€the€jukebox.€€In€addition,€the€evidence€indicated€that€appellantÏwas€wearing€a€hat€and€sunglasses€that€night,€which€were€later€identified€asÏbelonging€to€Brooks.× ƒ5 ××  ×ÌBy€this€time,€Brooksðð€œparents›€had€reported€their€son€missing.€€WhileÏsearching€for€Brooks€and€his€truck€by€helicopter,€police€spotted€the€burning€truck€andÏan€investigation€followed.€€Rather€quickly,€the€police€and€TBI€agents€were€able€toÏdetermine€Brooksðð€fate€and€were€led€to€the€three€perpetrators.€€All€three€wereÍarrested€and€charged€with€first€degree€premeditated€murder€and€felony€murder.€ÏThey€were€indicted€by€the€Carroll€County€grand€jury€in€September€of€1993.€€TheÏState€filed€a€notice€to€seek€the€death€penalty€against€the€defendants.Ì€€Upon€the€request€of€each€defendant,€the€trial€court€severed€the€action€andÏordered€three€separate€trials,€with€appellantððs€trial€being€held€first.€€In€addition,€aÏchange€of€venue€was€granted€due€to€pretrial€publicity.€€The€actions€all€occurred€inÏCarroll€County,€but€appellantððs€trial€was€held€in€Henry€County.€€At€the€bifurcated€trial,Ïthe€jury€first€found€appellant€guilty€of€first€degree€felony€murder.€€After€hearingÏevidence€at€the€sentencing€phase,€the€jury€sentenced€the€appellant€to€lifeÏimprisonment€without€parole.€€Pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„204,€the€verdict€included€the€juryððs€finding€of€two€aggravating€circumstancesÏnecessary€to€support€enhanced€punishment.€€The€jury€found:€ð ðthe€murder€wasÏespecially€heinous€and€cruelðð€and€ð ðthe€murder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€ofÏavoiding,€interfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€theÏdefendant€or€another.ðð€€œÌ̛̀Ìà@ àò ò1.€€CHALLENGE€TO€THE€INDICTMENTó óÌAppellant€argues€that€the€indictment€was€improper€in€that€it€did€not€chargeÏher€with€criminal€responsibility€for€the€murder€of€Dennis€Brooks,€Jr.,€but€that€the€trialÏjudge€charged€the€jury€with€this€accomplice€liability€in€his€instructions.€€We€find€thisÏissue€is€without€merit.€€A€proper€indictment€in€this€state€must:€(1)€inform€the€defendantÏof€the€precise€charges;€(2)€enable€a€trial€court€upon€conviction€to€enter€anÏappropriate€judgment€and€sentence;€and€(3)€protect€the€defendant€against€doubleÏjeopardy.€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€309€(Tenn.€1996).€€Necessarily€includedÏin€these€requirements€is€the€due€process€guarantee€that€the€indictment€must€provideÏthe€accused€a€fair€opportunity€to€defend€against€the€charges.€€òòId.óó€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.ÏMarshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€537€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(an€indictment€mustÏsufficiently€apprise€the€defendant€of€what€he€must€be€prepared€to€meet).€TheseÏrequirements€and€due€process€guarantees€were€met€by€the€indictment€in€this€case.ÌThe€indictment€charged€that€appellant€ð ðdid€unlawfully€knowingly€or€recklesslyÏkill€Dennis€Brooks,€Jr.€during€the€perpetration€of€a€felony,€to„wit:€kidnapping,€robberyÏor€theft,€in€violation€of€T.C.A.€39„13„202(a)(2).ðð× ƒ6 ××  ×€€The€indictment€clearly€chargedÏappellant€as€a€principal€in€the€crime€of€felony€murder.€€The€evidence€adduced€at€trialÏis€sufficient€to€support€her€actions€as€such.€€It€was€disputed€whether€appellant€firedÏthe€first€shot€that€could€have€killed€the€victim;€however,€such€proof€is€not€necessary€toÍsustain€a€conviction€for€felony€murder.€€A€defendant€who€is€a€willing€and€activeÏparticipant€in€a€felony€becomes€accountable€for€all€of€the€consequences€and€may€beÏconvicted€of€first„degree€murder€where€a€co„perpetrator€of€the€felony€is€the€actualÏkiller.€€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€336€(Tenn.€1992).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.ÏBrownóó,€756€S.W.2d€700,€704€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€498€U.S.€834,Ï111€S.Ct.€102,€112€L.Ed.2d€73€(1990)€(in€felony€murder,€all€defendants€areÏresponsible€for€the€death,€regardless€of€who€actually€committed€the€murder€andÏwhether€the€killing€was€specifically€contemplated€by€the€others).€€ÌUnder€the€felony„murder€doctrine,€appellant€can€be€convicted€of€first€degreeÏmurder€because€she€willingly€participated€in€the€felony.€€She€assisted€Smothers€andÏRamsey€in€stealing€Brooksðð€truck.€€It€is€not€necessary€that€she€commit€the€actualÏmurder.€€Her€liability€flows€from€the€intent€to€commit€the€felony.€€òòBrownóó,€756€S.W.2d€atÏ705.€€The€conviction€was€for€appellantððs€role€as€a€principal,€not€as€an€accomplice.€ÏAppellant€suffered€no€prejudice€from€the€instruction€and€it€was€harmless€error€for€theÏjudge€to€charge€the€jury€on€criminal€responsibility.€€The€indictment€informed€her€of€theÏprecise€charge€and€she€was€convicted€of€that€charge.€€She€is€also€protected€fromÏdouble€jeopardy€for€this€crime.€€The€indictment€satisfied€the€constitutional€andÏstatutory€prerequisites€and€was€not€improper€in€any€way.€Ì€A€very€similar€issue€was€raised€in€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€òòsupraóó.€€The€defendant€hadÏbeen€indicted€for€armed€robbery,€first€degree€(premeditated)€murder€and€felonyÍmurder.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€on€aiding€and€abetting€(the€equivalent€ofÏthe€present€criminal€responsibility€statute)€even€though€the€defendant€had€not€beenÏexplicitly€indicted€for€aiding€and€abetting.€This€Court€found€no€error€in€the€instruction.€Ï756€S.W.2d€at€704.€Similarly,€we€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€onÏcriminal€responsibility€where€the€indictment€did€not€so€charge.ÌÌà@ àò ò2.€€ERROR€IN€JURY€INSTRUCTIONSó óÌNext,€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€charged€the€jury€onÏcriminal€facilitation€after€instructing€the€jury€on€criminal€responsibility.€€Her€contentionÏis€that€it€was€warranted€as€a€lesser€offense.€€It€is€a€well„settled€principle€of€law€that€anÏinstruction€on€a€particular€charge€must€be€given€to€the€jury€only€if€evidence€in€theÏrecord€would€support€a€conviction€for€the€lesser€offense.€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2dÏ305,€311€(Tenn.€1996)€(citations€omitted).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€835€S.W.2d€32,Ï36€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(instruction€on€criminal€facilitation€should€be€given€whereÏits€application€is€fairly€raised€by€the€evidence).€€Where€there€is€no€proof€in€the€recordÏwhich€would€support€the€instruction,€a€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€the€instruction.€ÏòòTrustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€311.€€Such€is€the€case€here.€€The€record€is€devoid€of€anyÏevidence€to€support€a€conviction€for€criminal€facilitation€and€no€instruction€wasÏwarranted.ÌUnder€our€criminal€statutes,€ð ða€person€is€criminally€responsible€for€theÏfacilitation€of€a€felony€if,€knowing€that€another€intends€to€commit€a€specific€felony,€butÏwithout€the€intent€required€for€criminal€responsibility€under€ðð39„11„402(2),€the€personÏknowingly€furnishes€substantial€assistance€in€the€commission€of€a€felony.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð39„11„403(a)€(1991).€€In€contrast,€however,€the€record€before€us€isÏreplete€with€evidence€to€support€the€appellantððs€principal€role€in€the€crime.€€ÌTestimony€indicated€that€appellant€was€an€active€participant€in€the€eventsÏleading€up€to€the€victimððs€murder.€€Appellant€began€the€whole€ordeal€when€sheÏstopped€Brooks€in€the€road€that€night.€€She€admitted€that€after€Ramsey€threw€BrooksÏonto€the€ground,€she€hit€him€in€the€back€several€times€and€cursed€him.€€In€addition,Ïshe€kept€the€gun€trained€on€Brooks€as€he€lay€in€the€back€of€the€truck.€€Although€sheÏdenies€having€control€of€the€gun€when€the€first€shot€went€off,€Smothers€testified€thatÏthe€first€shot€into€Brooksðð€hip€occurred€while€appellant€was€holding€the€gun€on€him.€ÏAppellant€was€clearly€more€than€a€mere€facilitator.€€Where€the€record€clearly€showsÏthat€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€the€greater€offense,€it€is€not€error€to€fail€to€charge€theÏjury€on€a€lesser€offense.€€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589,€593€(Tenn.€1990),€òòcert.óóÏòòdeniedóó,€498€U.S.€1074,€111€S.Ct.€800,€112€L.Ed.2d€861€(1991).€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.Ìò òœÌ›à@ à3.€€ADMISSION€OF€POST„DEATH€EVIDENCEó óÌAppellant€also€contends€that€the€admission€of€post„death€evidence€was€errorÏand€denied€her€a€fair€trial.€€She€argues€that€she€was€not€indicted€for€any€post„deathÏacts€and€the€evidence€was€immaterial€to€prove€the€crime€of€murder.€€Specifically,Ïappellant€argues€that€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€was€substantiallyÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€prejudice.€€Because€we€believe€the€evidence€wasÏrelevant€to€prove€the€appellantððs€participation€in€the€events,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÏruling.€€ÌIn€order€for€evidence€to€be€relevant,€it€must€have€a€tendency€to€make€theÏexistence€of€any€material€fact€more€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€theÏevidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Under€Rule€402,€all€relevant€evidence€isÏgenerally€admissible.€€Here€the€post„death€evidence€was€relevant€in€that€it€made€theÏmaterial€fact€of€appellantððs€participation€more€probable.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402.€€In€hisÏopening€statement,€counsel€for€the€appellant€advised€the€jury€that€her€theory€was€thatÏshe€was€ð ðin€the€wrong€place€at€the€wrong€timeðð€and€she€did€not€actively€participate€inÏthe€crime.€€At€that€point,€evidence€relating€to€her€actions€preceding€the€death€andÏfollowing€death€became€relevant€to€prove€appellantððs€role€in€the€crime.€€This€isÏespecially€true€with€felony€murder€where€participation€in€the€felony€and€surroundingÏevents€make€an€actor€culpable.€€All€of€appellantððs€actions€prior€to€the€murder€andÏfollowing€the€murder€were€essential€to€prove€she€was€not€a€mere€bystander.€ThisÏevidence€made€her€participation€more€probable€and€therefore€relevant.€€ÌOf€course,€if€the€probative€value€of€relevant€evidence€is€substantiallyÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleadingÏthe€jury,€then€the€evidence€is€deemed€inadmissible.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€This€is€theÏcrux€of€appellantððs€contention.€€However,€we€are€inclined€to€agree€with€the€trialÏcourtððs€ruling€on€this€issue.€€The€probative€value€of€the€post„death€evidence€was€notÏsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€prejudice.€ÌIn€reaching€this€conclusion,€we€believe€it€is€useful€to€rely€upon€the€analysisÏemployed€when€the€admissibility€of€gruesome€photographs€is€challenged.€€AlthoughÏappellant€does€not€challenge€the€introduction€of€any€photographic€evidence,€theseÏprinciples€readily€apply€to€the€gruesome€testimony€offered€about€mutilation€of€theÏvictimððs€body.€€Generally,€a€courtððs€decision€to€admit€photographs€is€discretionary€andÏwill€not€be€reversed€absent€a€clear€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,Ï564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978).€€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530Ï(Tenn.€1994)€and€òòState€v.€Harbisonóó,€704€S.W.2d€314€(Tenn.€1986),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€476ÏU.S.€1153,€106€S.Ct.€2261,€90€L.Ed.2d€705€(1986).€€Based€on€that€standard,€we€doÏnot€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€permitting€the€jury€to€hear€theÏevidence.€€€ÌThere€is€no€question€that€the€post„death€evidence€was€gruesome€andÏrepulsive.€€The€medical€testimony€included€evidence€about€several€severed€bodyÏparts€and€the€removal€of€an€internal€organ.€€However,€this€evidence€was€relevant€toÍprove€the€appellantððs€involvement€in€the€overall€crime,€not€just€the€killing.€œ€It›€is€trueÏthat€the€post„death€facts€are€not€necessary€to€prove€the€actual€murder.€€Nevertheless,Ïit€is€relevant€to€demonstrate€the€appellantððs€role€in€the€crime€of€felony€murder.€ÏAppellantððs€participation€in€the€post„death€events€was€clearly€established.€€It€was€alsoÏshown€that€she€had€opportunities€to€escape€before€the€mutilation€and€burning.€€HerÏwilling€participation,€evidenced€by€her€voluntary€accompaniment€of€Smothers€andÏRamsey,€made€the€introduction€of€such€proof€necessary.€€Contrary€to€her€defense,€itÏwas€not€just€a€matter€of€being€in€the€wrong€place.€€Furthermore,€such€evidence€wasÏnecessary€to€explain€the€physical€evidence€found€at€appellantððs€home€and€toÏsubstantiate€the€chain€of€events.€€The€risk€of€prejudice€was€simply€not€substantialÏenough€to€œoutweigh€the€great€probative€value€of€this€evidence.€€We€find€no€abuse€ofÏdiscretion€on€the€part€of€the€trial€judge€in€allowing€the€post„death€evidence€to€beÏadmitted.ÌÌà@ àò ò4.€€INCOMPLETE€JURY€STATEMENT€OF€AGGRAVATORó óÌAppellantððs€fourth€issue€attacks€the€juryððs€verdict€of€life€imprisonment€withoutÏparole.€€She€alleges€that€the€jury€failed€to€completely€enumerate€the€first€aggravatingÏcircumstance€on€the€verdict€form.€€The€verdict€form€returned€by€the€jury€lists€the€firstÏaggravating€factor€as€ð ðthe€murder€was€especially€heinous€and€atrocious.ðð€It€omittedÏthe€remaining€statutory€language€of€this€aggravating€factor:€ð ð.€.€.€.€or€cruel€in€that€itÍinvolved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.ðð€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„204(i)(5)€(Supp.€1995).€€The€appellant€contends€that,Ïat€the€very€least,€this€requires€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€However,€we€find€no€errorÏand€affirm€the€verdict€in€this€respect.ÌThere€is€no€issue€here€with€respect€to€the€charge€given€the€jury€by€the€judge.€ÏIn€fact,€the€record€reflects€that€the€jury€instructions€were€a€full€and€accurate€instructionÏon€the€applicable€law,€including€that€on€statutory€aggravating€factors.€€We€mustÏpresume€then,€absent€clear€and€convincing€evidence€to€the€contrary,€that€the€juryÏfollowed€those€instructions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Newsomeóó,€744€S.W.2d€911,€915€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1987).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Vanzantóó,€659€S.W.2d€816,€819€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1983)€(the€presumption€is€that€a€jury€follows€the€instructions€of€the€court)€andÏòòCraig€v.€Stateóó,€524€S.W.2d€504,€508€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974)€(there€is€a€presumptionÏthat€a€jury€does€not€disregard€the€trial€courtððs€instructions).€€It€follows€then€that€the€juryÏmust€have€found€that€the€evidence€supported€application€of€the€aggravator,Ïregardless€of€the€omission€of€statutory€language.€€Based€upon€the€instructionsÏprovided,€the€jury€could€only€apply€the€aggravator€if€it€found€that€the€murder€wasÏespecially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel.€€Nothing€in€the€record€reflects€that€the€jury€didÏnot€follow€the€law€as€instructed.€€The€omission€of€the€complete€statutory€language€isÏnot€the€clear€and€convincing€evidence€required€to€overcome€the€presumption.ÌMoreover,€when€the€jury€made€its€report,€no€objection€was€made€by€appellantÏas€to€the€inadequacy€of€the€finding.€€The€appellant€did€not€properly€preserve€theÏissue€and€it€is€waived€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€235€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1988)€and€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€Had€an€objection€been€made,€the€courtÏcould€have€prevented€any€confusion€by€returning€the€jury€to€deliberate€if€the€court€feltÏthe€verdict€was€incomplete.€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€730€(Tenn.Ï1994),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,€115€S.Ct.€909,€130€L.Ed.2d€791€(1995)€(citationsÏomitted)€(when€the€jury€reports€an€incorrect€or€imperfect€verdict,€the€trial€court€hasÏboth€the€power€and€duty€to€return€the€jury€to€deliberate€and€reconsider€their€verdict).€ÏòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€836€S.W.2d€137,€143€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(if€the€trialÏcourt€considers€the€juryððs€verdict€unclear,€it€should€request€the€jury€to€return€toÏdeliberations€with€a€direction€to€amend€the€verdict€and€put€it€in€proper€form.)€ÏTherefore,€we€find€no€merit€to€appellantððs€issues€4(a)€and€4(c).€€We€defer€discussionÏof€issue€4(b),€which€is€synonymous€with€issue€7.€ÌÌà@ àò ò5.€€JURY€SELECTION€PROCEDUREó óÌAs€appellantððs€fifth€issue,€she€argues€that€the€trial€judge€violated€Rule€24(c)€ofÏthe€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€Specifically,€appellant€attacks€the€procedureÏfollowed€by€the€trial€court€after€a€preliminary€voir€dire€session.€€Initially,€the€trial€courtÏpermitted€voir€dire€only€on€pretrial€publicity€and€the€jurorsðð€views€on€the€deathÍpenalty.€€After€excusing€certain€jurors€for€cause,€the€court€instructed€counsel€that€itÏwould€seat€twenty€jurors€in€the€box€for€further€voir€dire.€€The€number€approved€by€theÏRules€is€twelve.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(c).€€The€judge€assured€counsel€that€theirÏrespective€peremptory€challenges€would€not€be€adversely€affected€by€this€method.€ÏAppellant€objected€to€the€method€and€argues€that€it€prejudiced€her.€€Although€the€juryÏselection€procedure€employed€was€not€in€accordance€with€the€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure,€we€find€that€the€error€was€harmless.Ìà àIn€order€for€a€defendant€to€sustain€a€challenge€to€the€selection€of€theÏjury,€she€must€demonstrate€that€she€suffered€prejudice€or€purposeful€discrimination.€€ÏòòState€v.€Colemanóó,€865€S.W.2d€455,€458€(Tenn.€1993).€Prejudice€will€not€beÏpresumed.€€òòId.óó€€Appellant€simply€has€not€carried€this€burden.€€She€is€unable€to€showÏthat€she€suffered€any€disadvantage€when€the€judge€put€twenty€prospective€jurors€inÏthe€box€instead€of€twelve.€€When€the€appellant€objected€to€the€voir€dire€method,€theÏtrial€court€inquired€as€to€what€disadvantage€the€appellant€would€suffer€under€theÏprocedure.€€Appellant€replied€that€information€from€such€a€number€would€beÏunmanageable€and€the€jurors€would€not€be€as€responsive€in€a€large€group.€ÏHowever,€appellant€is€unable€to€show€at€any€place€in€the€record€that€in€fact€voir€direÏbecame€unmanageable€or€that€the€jurors€were€unresponsive.€€Neither€can€she€showÏthat€her€peremptory€challenges€were€adversely€affected.€€In€fact,€the€appellant€choseÏnot€to€use€all€of€her€allotted€challenges.ÌIn€further€support€of€our€holding€is€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€òòsupraóó,€where€aÏdefendant€objected€to€a€very€similar€procedure€employed€by€the€trial€court.€€€TheÏcourt€there€held€that€appellant€was€unable€to€show€prejudice€where€the€court€putÏeighteen€prospective€jurors€in€the€box€instead€of€twelve.€€865€S.W.2d€at€458.€ÏSimilarly,€appellant€cannot€demonstrate€prejudice.€€It€is€true,€as€appellant€asserts,Ïthat€the€court€in€òòColemanóó€admonished€that€any€future€deviation€from€the€rule€couldÏconstitute€prejudice€to€the€entire€judicial€process.€€òòId.óó€€We,€too,€caution€the€trial€courtÏand€admonish€against€the€future€use€of€the€procedure,€but€without€a€showing€ofÏprejudice,€the€error€was€harmless.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.̛̜à@ àò ò6.€€ð ðHEINOUS,€ATROCIOUS,€OR€CRUELðð€AGGRAVATORó óÌAppellantððs€sixth€issue€attacks€the€application€of€the€ð ðespecially€heinous,Ïatrocious,€or€cruelðð€aggravating€factor€enumerated€in€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€39„13„204(i)(5).€€She€argues€that€absent€the€consideration€of€any€post„deathÏfacts,€the€proof€simply€did€not€support€the€aggravating€factor.€€As€such,€her€challengeÏis€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€The€well„known€standard€in€determining€theÏsufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€is€ð ðwhether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏfound€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.ÏVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€The€State€isÏafforded€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€proof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€asÍall€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.ÏCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Applying€that€standard,€we€find€theÏproof€is€overwhelmingly€sufficient€to€uphold€the€juryððs€application€of€this€aggravatingÏfactor.ÌMost€of€the€case€law€interpreting€the€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€aggravatingÏfactor€developed€prior€to€1989€when€the€statutory€language€was€somewhat€different.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€_____€U.S.€___,Ï114€S.Ct.€1577,€128€L.Ed.2d€220€(1994);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517€(Tenn.Ï1985);€òòState€v.€Pritchettóó,€621€S.W.2d€127€(Tenn.€1981);€and€òòState€v.€Dicksóó,€615ÏS.W.2d€126€(Tenn.€1981).€€In€those€cases,€the€aggravator€was€interpreted€in€light€ofÏthe€statutory€language€requiring€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.€€As€interpreted,€aÏmurder€could€be€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€by€showing€that€it€involved€torture€orÏdepravity€of€mind.€€òòId.óó€€The€current€statute,€which€was€in€effect€at€the€time€ofÏappellantððs€trial,€reads:€ð ðthe€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€thatÏit€involved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produceÏdeath.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„204(i)(5)€(Supp.€1995).€€The€depravity€of€mindÏlanguage€has€been€omitted.€€ð ðHeinous,€atrocious,€or€cruelðð€are€now€narrowed€andÏdefined€by€the€requirement€that€the€act€involve€torture€or€serious€physical€abuseÏbeyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.€€òòState€v.€Richard€Odomóó,€No.€02„S„01„9502„CR„00014€(Tenn.€at€Jackson,€œJune3,›€1996),€slip€op.€at€18.€€Torture€is€defined€as€theÍinfliction€of€severe€physical€or€mental€pain€upon€the€victim€while€he€or€she€remainsÏalive€and€conscious.€€òòIdóó€(citing€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€529€(Tenn.€1985)).€ÏSerious€physical€abuse€is€something€different€from€torture.€€òòId.óó€€Serious€is€a€matter€ofÏdegree;€the€abuse€must€be€physical,€not€mental,€and€it€must€be€more€than€what€isÏnecessary€to€produce€death.€€òòId.óó€€ÌBased€upon€the€interpretation€of€the€current€aggravator,€it€is€evident€that€theÏjury€could€have€found€these€elements€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€proofÏdemonstrated€that€appellant€and€her€cohorts€stopped€the€victimððs€truck,€forcibly€threwÏhim€to€the€ground,€held€a€gun€on€him€and€hit€him€numerous€times.€€After€forcing€theÏvictim€into€the€back€of€the€truck,€the€perpetrators€shot€him€in€the€hip.€€WhollyÏundeterred€by€this€action,€they€continued€on€their€journey€and€did€not€seek€medicalÏattention€for€the€young€man.€€During€this€time,€the€victim€was€fully€conscious€andÏmedical€testimony€reflected€that€the€hip€wound€would€have€caused€excruciatingÏpain.The€victim€cried€out€in€pain€after€being€shot€and€callously€they€yelled€at€him,Ïordering€him€to€shut€up.€€After€driving€around€for€20„30€minutes,€they€approached€theÏnext€town.€€Upon€seeing€lights,€the€victim€began€to€scream€for€help.€€The€perpetratorsÏordered€him€to€be€quiet€and€then€Smothers€placed€the€shotgun€under€the€youngÏmanððs€chin€and€fired.€€He€received€all€this€in€return€for€stopping€to€help€a€womanÏalone€on€a€deserted€road,€a€simple€gesture€of€kindness.€€ÌMedical€testimony€at€trial€indicated€that€the€gunshot€wound€to€the€victimððs€hipÏwas€enough€to€cause€death,€mostly€due€to€the€tremendous€amount€of€blood€lossÏcaused€by€severed€arteries.€€The€second€shot€was€not€necessary€to€kill€the€victim.ÏThus,€the€jury€could€have€considered€the€shot€to€the€head€as€serious€physical€abuseÏbeyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.€€Furthermore,€the€jury€was€justified€inÏconsidering€it€extremely€cruel€that€the€perpetrators€consciously€chose€not€to€seekÏmedical€attention€when€death€was€not€immediate€from€the€first€shot.€€They€let€himÏsuffer€and€writhe€in€pain€with€complete€inhumanity.€€The€perpetratorsðð€indifference€toÏthe€victimððs€extreme€pain€and€suffering€could€easily€have€been€considered€by€the€juryÏto€be€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel.€€Thus,€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidenceÏclearly€supports€the€juryððs€verdict.€ÌWe€note€that€several€cases€have€held€that€gunshot€wounds€which€causeÏinstantaneous€death€do€not€warrant€application€of€the€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruelÏaggravating€factor.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€478€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.óóÏòòdeniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,€114€S.Ct.€1577,€128€L.Ed.2d€220€(1994);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,Ï690€S.W.2d€517,€529€(Tenn.€1985);€and€òòState€v.€Pritchettóó,€621€S.W.2d€127,€139Ï(Tenn.€1981).€€òòButóó€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€183„84€(Tenn.€1991)€(the€juryÏcould€have€found€a€brutal€execution€style€murder€of€a€helpless€child€who€could€notÏprotect€herself€evinces€torture€or€depravity€of€mind).€From€the€proof€in€this€case,€it€isÏclear€that€instantaneous€death€did€not€occur.€€After€the€first€shot,€the€victim€was€veryÍmuch€alive,€conscious€and€suffering€from€extreme€pain.€€Medical€testimony€indicatedÏthat€after€such€a€wound,€the€victim€would€be€conscious,€oriented€as€to€time€and€placeÏand€aware€of€the€circumstances€and€what€had€happened.€€He€was€forced€to€endureÏthis€while€the€appellant€and€her€cohorts€traveled€several€miles.€It€wasnððt€untilÏSmothers€fired€the€second€shot€into€the€head€that€immediate€death€occurred.€€ThisÏdistinguishes€appellantððs€case€from€the€above„cited€cases.€€The€proof€supports€theÏjuryððs€application€of€this€aggravating€factor.€€Appellantððs€argument€on€this€issue€isÏmeritless.€ÌœÌÌ›à@ àò ò7.€€ð ðAVOIDING€ARREST€OR€PROSECUTIONðð€AGGRAVATORó óÌIn€a€similar€attack,€appellant€argues€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€toÏsupport€the€application€of€the€aggravating€factor€found€in€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€39„13„204(i)(6).€€This€statute€allows€the€jury€to€impose€enhancedÏpunishment€if€it€finds€that€ð ðthe€murder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,Ïinterfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€the€defendant€orÏanother.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„204(i)(6)€(Supp.€1995).€€Because€we€find€that€aÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€this€aggravator,€weÏaffirm€the€juryððs€verdict€in€this€respect.€€ÌIn€one€of€the€few€cases€interpreting€this€aggravator,€the€supreme€court€statedÏthat€it€is€sufficient€that€the€proof€supports€a€finding€that€at€least€one€motive€for€theÏkilling€was€the€threat€of€defendantððs€apprehension.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,Ï580€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,€115€S.Ct.€417,€130€L.Ed.2d€333Ï(1994).€€Here€it€is€abundantly€clear€that€the€juryððs€verdict€was€supported€by€theÏevidence,€especially€when€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State.€€€After€theÏfirst€shot,€the€victim€began€to€scream€when€the€lights€of€the€next€town€were€visible.€€ItÏwas€then€that€Smothers€fired€the€second€shot€into€the€victimððs€head.€€It€is€reasonableÏfor€a€jury€to€infer€that€Smothers€shot€the€victim€to€prevent€his€screams€from€beingÏheard€by€others€in€the€town€so€as€to€avoid€the€risk€of€apprehension.€€In€light€of€òòSmithóó,Ïit€is€irrelevant€if€Smothers€had€additional€motives€for€the€shooting.ÌFurthermore,€on€cross„examination,€the€appellant€testified€that€Smothers€saidÏhe€shot€him€because€he€was€afraid€somebody€would€hear€him€and€they€would€getÏcaught.€€The€timing€of€the€second€shot€itself€supports€the€inference€that€it€was€done€toÏavoid€detection,€but€when€coupled€with€appellantððs€testimony,€its€plausibilityÏbecomes€even€more€apparent.€€Because€the€State€is€entitled€to€all€reasonable€andÏlegitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€proof,€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571ÏS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978),€we€find€that€this€aggravator€was€supported€by€theÏproof.€€ÌAppellant€incorrectly€contends€that€this€aggravator€necessarily€contains€aÏpremeditation€aspect.€€The€cases€cited€for€this€proposition€are€not€on€point.€€From€theÏplain€language€of€the€statute,€the€only€requirement€is€that€the€murder€was€committedÏfor€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrest€orÏprosecution€of€the€defendant€or€another.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„204(i)(6)€(Supp.Ï1995).€€The€òòSmithóó€case€confirms€this€plain€meaning.€€The€statutory€language€doesÏnot€include€an€element€of€premeditation€or€a€specific€intent.€€Appellantððs€strainedÏargument€is€not€well„taken.€€Appellant€also€argues€that€the€only€evidence€to€supportÏthis€aggravating€factor€was€the€uncorroborated€testimony€of€an€accomplice.€€TheÏrecord€is€replete€with€evidence€to€corroborate€the€testimony€of€co„defendantÏSmothers.€€ÌAs€part€of€this€issue,€appellant€contends€that€she€cannot€be€held€liable€on€thisÏaggravator€because€she€did€not€commit€the€murder€of€the€victim.€€Such€a€statement€isÏsimply€not€true€in€a€felony€murder€conviction.€€This€contention€has€already€beenÏdiscussed€in€the€first€issue.ÌAppellant€makes€another€untenable€contention€in€her€argument.€€She€assertsÏthat€this€aggravator€is€unconstitutional€in€a€felony€murder€conviction€because€killingÏthe€victim€to€prevent€reporting€of€the€felony€is€inherent€in€every€felony€murder.€€HerÏbelief€is€that€every€murder€committed€in€perpetration€of€a€felony€is€done€to€preventÏarrest€or€prosecution.€€Accordingly,€as€an€element€of€the€crime,€application€of€thisÍaggravator€would€violate€the€rule€of€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.Ï1992).€€Such€an€assertion€is€factually€untrue.€€The€killing€that€occurs€in€perpetration€ofÏa€felony€is€not€necessarily€done€to€prevent€arrest€or€prosecution.€€There€may€be€anyÏnumber€of€reasons€that€the€murder€was€committed.€€It€does€not€follow€that€we€canÏassume€such€a€purpose€for€every€felony€murder.€€These€contentions€have€no€merit;Ïapplication€of€the€aggravator€was€proper.ÌÌà@ àò ò8.€€PROSECUTORIAL€DISCRETIONó óÌAppellantððs€next€issue€attacks€the€district€attorneyððs€decision€to€pursue€aÏcharge€of€first€degree€murder.€€The€gist€of€the€argument€is€that€the€district€attorneyÏcould€easily€have€charged€the€appellant€with€criminal€facilitation€of€felony€murderÏand€his€decision€to€do€otherwise€was€error.€€Appellant€cites€no€authority€for€thisÏproposition€and€we€find€no€requirement€that€a€prosecutor€must€charge€a€lesserÏoffense€when€evidence€is€present€to€support€a€greater€offense.€€In€fact,€the€authority€isÏdirectly€contrary€to€this.€€The€attorney€generalððs€broad€discretion€includes€whether€theÏprosecution€should€be€dismissed€or€whether€the€offense€should€be€reduced€to€aÏlesser€included€offense.€€òòState€v.€Turneróó,€919€S.W.2d€346,€350€n.2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995).€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Gilliamóó,€901€S.W.2d€385,€389€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)Ï(citations€omitted)€(the€decision€of€whether€to€prosecute€and€what€charge€to€file€orÏbring€before€a€grand€jury€rests€within€the€prosecutorððs€discretion).€€The€courts€are€notÍto€interfere€with€the€free€exercise€of€this€discretionary€authority.€€òòGilliamóó,€901€S.W.2dÏat€389.€€Clearly,€the€decision€to€pursue€the€charge€of€first€degree€murder€was€withinÏthe€district€attorneyððs€discretion€and€amply€supported€by€the€facts.€€Thus,€we€find€noÏmerit€in€this€contention.€€ÌÌà@ àò ò9.€€IMPROPER€ARGUMENT€DURING€GUILT€PHASEó óÌAppellantððs€next€issue€is€the€alleged€improper€argument€of€the€districtÏattorney€during€closing€argument€at€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial.€€In€that€closingÏargument,€the€district€attorney€stated€ð ð.€.€.€he€who€runs€with€the€pack€shares€in€the€kill.ðð€ÏThis€single€comment€is€the€only€portion€of€this€lengthy€argument€to€which€theÏappellant€objects.€€Although€the€statement€likely€gave€the€jury€a€sharp€visual€image€toÏrelate€to€the€alleged€crime,€it€is€peculiarly€applicable€in€the€context€of€felony€murder.€ÏWe€find€the€appellant€suffered€no€prejudice€from€the€graphic€comment.ÌIn€reviewing€such€an€issue,€it€is€necessary€to€determine€whether€the€improperÏconduct€could€have€affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€appellant.€€òòJudge€v.ÏStateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976)€(citing€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€385ÏS.W.2d€758€(Tenn.€1965)).€€In€order€to€determine€prejudice,€five€factors€areÏconsidered:€(1)€the€conduct€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case;€(2)€anyÏcurative€measures€taken€by€the€court;€(3)€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€theÏstatement;€(4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€other€errors€in€theÍrecord;€and€(5)€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.€€òòId.óó€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.ÏWilliamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€413€(Tenn.€1983),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€465€U.S.€1073,€104€S.Ct.Ï1429,€79€L.Ed.2d€753€(1984).ÌApplying€the€test€to€the€facts€here,€no€prejudice€resulted€from€the€districtÏattorneyððs€comment.€€When€viewed€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances,€theÏstatement€was€not€inherently€improper.€€It€was€merely€a€description€of€the€murderÏscene.€€No€curative€measures€were€undertaken,€but€none€were€needed.€€The€intentÏof€the€prosecutor€was€probably€nothing€more€than€an€attempt€to€visualize€the€sceneÏfor€the€jury.€€Nothing€else€in€the€district€attorneyððs€argument€was€improper€so€thereÏwas€no€danger€of€cumulative€effect.€€Finally,€this€was€not€a€close€case.€€The€appellantÏhad€admitted,€to€a€degree,€her€involvement€and€the€Stateððs€case€was€strong.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€comment€was€fully€within€the€district€attorneyððs€role€to€pursue€theÏStateððs€case€with€thoroughness€and€vigor.€€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€When€coupled€with€the€principle€that€argument€should€notÏbe€unduly€restricted€and€courts€should€give€wide€latitude€to€counsel,€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,Ï527€S.W.2d€737,€739€(Tenn.€1975),€appellantððs€argument€is€meritless.ÌÌà@ àò ò10.€€IMPROPER€ARGUMENT€AT€SENTENCING€PHASEó óÌAppellant€also€attacks€the€district€attorneyððs€closing€argument€at€theÏsentencing€phase.€€She€maintains€that€the€argument€was€a€ð ðveiled€proffer€ofÍvengeanceðð€and€this€is€an€impermissible€argument.€€The€appellant€does€not€specifyÏany€particular€portion€of€this€relatively€brief€argument.€€It€is€true€that€our€supreme€courtÏhas€counseled€against€an€appeal€to€vengeance€in€a€district€attorneyððs€argument.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€812€(Tenn.€1994).€€However,€in€reading€theÏdistrict€attorneyððs€argument,€we€find€no€attempt€to€urge€the€jury€to€vengeance.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò ò11.€€TRIAL€JUDGEððS€RECUSALó óÌAppellant€next€maintains€that€the€trial€judge€erred€by€failing€to€recuse€himselfÏfor€partiality€toward€a€Stateððs€witness.€€She€contends€that€certain€statements€made€inÏopen€court€about€a€testifying€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€agent€demonstratedÏthe€judgeððs€partiality€in€this€case.€€This,€according€to€appellant,€was€sufficient€toÏrequire€recusal.€€We€disagree.ÌWhen€a€motion€to€recuse€is€made,€it€is€addressed€to€the€sound€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court.€òòState€v.€Hurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€57,€64€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€___€U.S.Ï___,€115€S.Ct.€328,€130€L.Ed.2d€287€(1994)€(citations€omitted).€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€œv.›ÏCashóó,€867€S.W.2d€741,€749€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€It€should€only€be€granted€whereÏthe€judgeððs€impartiality€might€reasonably€be€questioned.€€òòAlley€v.€Stateóó,€882€S.W.2dÏ810,€820€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€The€issue€to€be€determined€is€not€the€propriety€ofÏthe€judicial€conduct,€but€whether€the€judge€committed€an€error€which€resulted€in€anÍunjust€disposition€of€the€case.€€òòHurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€64.€€From€a€reading€of€theÏrecord,€we€do€not€believe€an€objective€view€of€the€circumstances€necessitatesÏrecusal.€€òòSeeóó€òòAlleyóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€821(a€trial€judge€must€consider€a€motion€to€recuseÏobjectively€as€well€as€subjectively).€ÌThe€alleged€improper€comments€of€the€trial€judge€occurred€at€theÏsuppression€hearing€to€decide€the€admissibility€of€appellantððs€statement.€€TheÏprimary€witness€in€that€hearing€was€TBI€agent€Alvin€Daniels,€an€experienced€fieldÏagent€who€had€appeared€before€the€trial€judge€on€numerous€occasions.€€AgentÏDaniels€was€quite€ill,€as€he€had€recently€been€diagnosed€with€cancer€and€wasÏundergoing€chemotherapy.€€Since€Agent€Danielsðð€illness€could€prohibit€him€fromÏattending€the€trial,€his€testimony€was€preserved€for€trial.€€Upon€conclusion€of€theÏevidence€at€the€hearing,€the€judge€denied€the€motion€to€suppress.€€Only€afterÏrendering€his€decision€on€the€motion,€did€the€judge€undertake€to€comment€on€Mr.ÏDanielððs€veracity:ÌÓÓà8 àð ðLastly,€and€perhaps€as€an€aside€this€Court€cannot€setÏaside,€perhaps€some€30€years€of€knowledge€of€havingÏheard€Agent€Daniels€testify,€since€he€first€started€as€aÏyoungster.€€He€is€peculiarly€talented,€and€uncommonlyÏstraightforward.€€This€man€doesnððt€have€a€dishonest€boneÏin€his€body.€€You€couldnððt€beat€a€lie€out€of€him.€€I€haveÏseen€him€let€cases€drop€out€from€under€him,€before€heÏwould€even€discolor€testimony.€€I€think€what€he€testified€to,Ïis€precisely€what€happened€out€there€that€day,€and€I€thinkÏthat€he€established€the€voluntary€giving€of€this€statement.ðð€ÌÌÓÓWhile€this€Court€does€not€condone€the€statements€made€by€the€experiencedÏtrial€judge€in€this€case,€we€are€unable€to€find€that€it€demonstrated€a€prejudice€or€biasÏwhich€led€to€an€unjust€disposition€of€the€case.€€The€case€was€tried€before€a€jury€whichÏrendered€an€impartial€verdict€based€upon€the€evidence.€€The€statement€could€notÏhave€improperly€influenced€a€jury€because€this€conduct€occurred€at€a€pretrialÏhearing.€€Nothing€in€the€record€demonstrated€any€improper€rulings,€remarks€orÏconduct€at€trial€by€the€judge€that€could€be€attributed€to€partiality.€€òòSeeóó€òòHurleyóó,€876ÏS.W.2d€at€64.€€We€believe€the€comments€were€meant€to€be€a€tribute€to€a€man€in€poorÏhealth€whom€the€judge€held€in€high€regard.€€Although€improper€in€a€court€setting,€weÏfind€the€appellant€suffered€no€prejudice€as€a€result.€€It€is€important€to€remember€thatÏnot€every€bias,€partiality,€or€prejudice€merits€recusal.€€€òòAlleyóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€821.€Thus,Ïthe€comments€were€harmless€error€and€the€issue€is€overruled.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï52(a).ÌÌà@ àò ò12.€€SUPPRESSION€OF€STATEMENTó óÌAppellant€maintains€in€her€twelfth€issue€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€inÏdenying€the€motion€to€suppress€her€statement.€€Appellant€alleges€that€lawÏenforcement€officials€failed€to€timely€administer€Miranda€warnings€and€that€herÏstatement€was€involuntarily€given.€€Purportedly,€this€rendered€her€statementÏinadmissible.€€The€focus€of€the€appellantððs€lengthy€argument€here€is€on€theÍdetermination€of€ð ðcustodial€interrogation.ðð€€Finding€no€error€by€the€trial€court€on€theÏmotion,€we€uphold€its€ruling.ÌThe€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€a€motion€to€suppress€will€not€be€disturbed€unlessÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€its€finding.€€òòState€v.€Kellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€726,€728„29€(Tenn.€1980).€€Whether€or€not€police€questioning€is€custodial€interrogation€isÏprimarily€a€fact„based€question€and€the€trial€courtððs€findings€have€the€weight€of€a€juryÏverdict.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tateóó,€615€S.W.€2d€161,€162€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€A€reviewÏof€the€transcript€from€the€suppression€hearing€reveals€that€the€evidence€amplyÏsupported€the€judgeððs€admission€of€the€statement.ÌThe€relevant€inquiry€in€determining€custodial€interrogations€is€ð ðwhether,Ïunder€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€a€reasonable€person€in€the€suspectððs€positionÏwould€consider€himself€or€herself€deprived€of€freedom€of€movement€to€a€degreeÏassociated€with€a€formal€arrest.ðð€€òòState€v.€Joe€L.€Andersonóó,€No.€02„S„01„9511„CC„00121€(Tenn.€at€Jackson,€September€16,€1996),€slip€op.€at€11.€€This€is€an€objectiveÏtest€from€the€perspective€of€the€suspect€and€the€subjective€view€of€law€enforcementÏofficials€that€the€individual€is€or€is€not€a€suspect€does€not€bear€upon€the€question.€€òòId.óó€ÏSome€of€the€relevant€factors€in€this€factual€determination€are€the€time€and€location€ofÏthe€interrogation;€the€duration€and€character€of€the€questioning;€the€officerððs€tone€ofÏvoice€and€general€demeanor;€the€suspectððs€method€of€transportation€to€the€place€ofÏquestioning;€the€number€of€police€officers€present;€any€limitation€on€movement€orÍother€form€of€restraint€imposed€on€the€suspect€during€the€interrogation;€and€anyÏinteractions€between€the€officer€and€the€suspect.€€òòIdóó€at€9.€€€ÌThe€totality€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€appellantððs€statement€do€notÏlend€themselves€to€a€conclusion€of€custodial€interrogation.€€Officials€went€toÏappellantððs€home€the€day€after€the€murder.€€They€were€led€to€her€based€uponÏinformation€given€by€co„defendant€Stacy€Ramsey.€€The€officers€went€to€appellantððsÏhouse,€asked€to€speak€with€her€and€talked€with€appellant€on€her€front€porch.€€TheÏtime€was€around€9:30€or€10:00€a.m.€€The€questioning€lasted€approximately€an€hour.€ÏThe€TBI€agent€who€questioned€appellant€stated€that€he€spoke€with€her€in€a€normalÏtone€of€voice€and€that€he€was€not€ð ðsmartðð€with€her.€€He€made€the€statement€that€ð ðnowÏwas€the€time€for€her€to€talk.ðð€€Appellant€was€not€transported€to€the€police€station,€butÏrather€permitted€to€remain€at€her€own€home.€€There€were€four€law€enforcementÏofficials€present,€but€two€of€them€were€questioning€Smothers€inside€the€house.€€ÏAppellant€was€not€confined;€she€was€permitted€to€move€to€the€front€porch€from€insideÏwhen€she€expressed€a€fear€that€Smothers€would€hear€what€she€had€to€say.€€No€oneÏindicated€that€she€was€not€free€to€leave.€€At€the€first€mention€of€incriminatingÏstatements,€the€officers€administered€Miranda€warnings.€€Under€a€totality€of€theÏcircumstances,€these€facts€are€more€than€sufficient€to€support€the€trial€judgeððs€rulingÏon€this€motion.€€The€trial€court€is€especially€suited€to€make€this€factual€inquiry,ÍòòAndersonóó,€slip€op.€at€10,€and€we€find€no€error.€€The€record€also€supports€the€rulingÏthat€the€statement€was€voluntarily€given.€€Appellantððs€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌÌà@ àò ò13.€€JURORS€EXCUSED€FOR€RELIGIOUS€BELIEFó óÌAppellantððs€final€issue€is€an€alleged€constitutional€violation€of€Article€1,Ïsection€6€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€She€asserts€that€the€excusal€of€certainÏprospective€jurors€for€cause€based€upon€their€religious€beliefs€regarding€the€deathÏpenalty€violates€the€prohibition€against€a€religious€test€for€jurors.€€In€light€of€priorÏholdings€of€our€supreme€court,€we€find€no€error.€€ÌIn€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€727€S.W.2d€945€(Tenn.),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€484€U.S.€872,€108ÏS.Ct.€204,€98€L.Ed.2d€155€(1987),€this€exact€issue€was€raised€by€a€defendant€in€aÏcapital€case.€€The€words€of€the€court€are€particularly€applicable€here:€€ÌÓÓà8 àð ðWe€have€read€the€voir€dire€carefully€and,€while€someÏjurors€said€their€opposition€to€and€inability€to€impose€theÏdeath€penalty,€regardless€of€the€evidence€adduced,€wasÏbased€in€whole€or€in€part€on€religious€grounds,€thoseÏjurors€were€excused€because€their€views€on€punishmentÏrendered€them€unable€to€follow€the€law€as€given€to€themÏby€the€court€and€to€perform€their€duties€as€jurors€in€accordÏwith€their€oaths.€€That€their€views€on€capital€punishmentÏmay€have€had€a€religious€foundation€does€not€necessarilyÏtransform€the€tests€mandated€by€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€in€òòWitherspoon€v.€Illinoisóó,€391€U.S.€510,Ï88€S.Ct.€1770,€20€L.Ed.2d€776€(1968)€and€òòWainwright€v.ÍWittóó,€òòsupraóó,€into€religious€tests€for€the€purposes€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.ððÌ€€€ÌÓÓòòà àà àIdóó€at€949.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€789€S.W.2d€545,€547€(Tenn.),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€498ÏU.S.€908,€111€S.Ct.€280,€112€L.Ed.2d€234€(1990)€(quoting€with€approval€from€òòState€v.ÏBoboóó).€€€ÌThe€record€reflects€that€prospective€jurors€David€Fitzhugh,€Estel€Pace,€PaulÏGaskin,€and€Darel€Kendall€were€all€excused€by€the€court€for€cause.€€This€wasÏpremised€on€their€expression€to€the€court€that€their€religious€beliefs€would€interfereÏwith€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€€Each€expressed€an€inability€to€apply€the€deathÏpenalty€even€when€warranted€by€law.€€Since€their€excusal€was€premised€on€a€refusal€Ïto€follow€the€law,€an€inherent€duty€of€a€juror,€this€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌÌà@ àò òCONCLUSIONó óÌBased€upon€a€detailed€and€exhaustive€review€of€this€voluminous€record,€weÏhave€determined€that€no€reversible€error€was€committed€in€this€difficult€and€emotionalÏtrial.€€The€appellantððs€conviction€of€felony€murder€and€sentence€of€life€imprisonmentÏwithout€parole€is€hereby€affirmed.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àJoseph€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge