ÿWPC£1 …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 0P4 4„ 0 ”˜ 0D, 0Jp º 0Tº 0^ wl 0h| 0rä 0|V 0†Ò 0X 1uè U ,] 0d‰ BíU, U66 D3lB)ŸDCÈ 0@  AMK8˜¥Ðu]a£ñd”Íø²Å!¾w#¾5%ºó&v~­(vÓ+* AOþ/ÆM0 0D1 D/W1 B†1<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|XÜ «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓGav (D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÒ Ó€Ü 26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New$$$$'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ .Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌMayÏ9,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó ›Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ôÔÔ€ÔAlthough€there€is€proof€in€the€record€that€Henley€was€taking€more€than€the€prescribedÏdosages,€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record€that€he€was€being€required€to€do€so€by€his€jailers.Ì …Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ôÔÔ€ÔIndeed,€Henley€filed€a€civil€rights€action€about€his€pre„trial€incarceration,€complaining€about€theÏlength€of€time€he€had€to€wait€to€be€taken€to€the€doctor.Ì SÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ôÔÔ€Ô€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€"the€word€heinous€means€grossly€wicked€andÏreprehensible,€abominable,€atrocious€and€vile.€€Atrocious€means€extremely€evil€or€cruel,€monstrous,Ïexceptionally€bad,€abominable.€€Cruel€means€disposed€to€inflict€pain€or€suffering,€causing€suffering,Ïpainful.€€Torture€means,€the€infliction€of€severe€physical€pain€as€a€means€of€punishment€or€coercion[;Ïœt]he›€experience€of€this[;]€mental€anguish[;]€any€method€or€thing€that€causes€such€pain€or€anguish[;]€toÏinflict€would€create€[sic]€physical€or€mental€pain.€€Depravity€means€moral€corruption,€wicked,€or€œpreversed›Ï[sic]€acts."Ì †Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ôÔÔ€ÔBefore€the€pistol€was€admitted€into€evidence,€Mr.€Reneau€objected€to€the€sheriff€beingÏquestioned€about€where€it€was€found€on€the€basis€of€no€personal€knowledge.€€The€trial€court€allowed€theÏsheriff€to€testify€about€how€heððd€come€into€possession€of€it€as€it€was€shown€to€him€by€the€prosecutor.€ÏWhen€the€pistol€was€later€marked€for€identification,€and€subsequently€entered€into€evidence,€noÏobjection€was€made.Ì ™Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ôÔÔ€ÔWe€can€only€speculate€as€to€what€this€expert's€testimony€would€have€been€had€he€actuallyÏinvestigated€the€fire.€€It€is€possible€that€he€would€have€found€incriminating€evidence.Ì ZÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ôÔÔ€ÔBecause€Mr.€Reneau€died€before€he€could€testify€in€this€proceeding,€it€is€impossible€to€knowÏfor€certain€whether€or€not€he€was€aware€that€Henley€was€taking€Xanax€and€P.V.€Tussin€during€the€trial.€€ItÏis€possible€that€Mr.€Reneau€did€know,€and€that€he€approved.€€However,€the€record€supports€theÏinference€that€Mr.€Reneau€was€unaware€that€Henley€was€taking€these€drugs.€€Ì ÃÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ôÔÔ€ÔDefense€counsel's€offer€of€proof€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€about€the€jurors'€perceptionsÏof€the€petitioner's€demeanor€at€trial€does€not€establish€that€his€demeanor€there€was€significantly€differentÏfrom€what€it€normally€was.€€Only€a€person€who€was€familiar€with€the€defendant€'s€demeanor,€both€while€heÏwas€taking€the€medication€at€issue€and€while€he€was€not,€would€be€competent€to€offer€testimony€aboutÏany€change€which€arguably€should€have€triggered€an€investigation.Ì ¨Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔAlthough€Henley€steadfastly€maintained€at€trial€that€he€did€not€abuse€drugs,€Dr.€Byrne€testifiedÏthat€Henley€had€told€him€that€he€was€"used€to€shooting€four€milligram[s]€.€.€.€[of]€Dilaudid."Ì ´Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ôÔÔ€ÔGiven€that€Henley€was€also€taking€antianxiety€medication€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€we€canÏonly€infer€that€he€has€difficulty€dealing€with€stressful€situations€without€the€benefit€of€such€medication.Ì ´Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ôÔÔ€ÔIn€the€petitionerððs€offer€of€proof€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€one€juror€was€quoted€asÏsaying,€ð ðIf€a€manððs€own€mother€wonððt€testify€on€his€behalf€then€we€know€what€weððve€got€to€do.ððÌ °Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ôÔÔ€ÔUnlike€òòState€v.€Melson›óó,€772€S.W.2d€417€(Tenn.€1989),€this€was€not€a€case€where€the€availableÏmitigation€evidence€had€already€been€presented€during€the€guilt€phase€of€the€petitionerððs€trial.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€''X„d&ÓÑ#€''Xd#ÑÔ€(ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€§õXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßL€./,;+'h|×ÿÛ` 81 `€€Lßà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àNOVEMBER€1995ÏSESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTEVE€HENLEY,à àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€01C01„9506„CC„00193ó óÌà àà àAppellant,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJACKSON€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€J.ÏO.€BOND€,ÌSTATE€OFÏTENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellee.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Post„conviction)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òJACK€E.ÏSEAMANà àà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONÌó ó611€Commerce€St.,€Suite€2704à àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporterò òÌó óNashville,€TN€€37203ò òÌó óà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àJOHN€H.ÏBAKERó óÌò òPAUL€S.€DAVIDSONó óà àà àà àà àAsst.ÏAttorney€GeneralÌ424€Church€St.€€à àà àà àà àà à450ÍJames€Robertson€Pkwy.à àNashville,€TN€€37219à àà àà àà àNashville,ÏTN€€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àTOM€P.€THOMPSONó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àJOHN€WOOTENó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€178Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHartsville,€TN€€37074ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSED€IN€PART,ÌAND€REMANDED€FOR€RESENTENCINGó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€two€counts€of€first„degreeÏmurder€and€one€count€of€aggravated€arson.€€The€jury€set€the€petitionerððs€punishmentÏat€death€by€electrocution€for€the€murder€convictions,€and€the€court€sentenced€him€toÏtwenty€years€for€the€arson€offense.€€The€petitioner's€convictions€and€sentences€wereÏaffirmed€by€our€Supreme€Court€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Henleyóó,€774€S.W.2d€908Ï(Tenn.€1989).€€He€then€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€which€was€deniedÏafter€a€hearing.€€Ìà àÌà àà àThe€petitioner€now€appeals,€contending€that€the€lower€court€erred€inÏfailing€to€find€that:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° Ò1.€€His€constitutional€rights€against€unreasonable€searches€andÏseizures€were€violated€when€evidence€of€Terry€Flatt's€identity€wasÏobtained€during€a€pretextual€arrest€and€subsequently€used€at€trial;ÌÌ2.€€His€due€process€rights€to€a€fair€trial€were€violated€whenÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° Ò(a)€€the€trial€court€admitted€into€evidence€a€pistol€which€was€€€€Ïirrelevant€and€highly€prejudicial;ÌÌ(b)€€the€jury€was€informed€that€a€criminal€defendant€servingÏa€€life€sentence€would€be€eligible€to€be€considered€forÏparole€in€thirty„five€years;ÌÌ(c)€€the€State€provided€antianxiety€and€narcotic€medicationsÏto€him€during€the€course€of€his€trial;€andÌÌ(d)€€the€State€withheld€exculpatory€information€in€violation€ofÏòòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963),€when€it€failed€toÏinform€his€counsel€about€the€medications€he€was€taking;ÌÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° Ò3.€€The€jury€instructions€given€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€his€trialÏwere€unconstitutional;ÌÌ4.€€Tennessee's€death€penalty€statutes€are€unconstitutional;ÌÌ5.€€His€constitutional€right€to€a€trial€by€jury€was€denied€when€jurors€€Ïopposed€to€the€death€penalty€were€excused€by€the€trial€court;€andÌÌ6.€€He€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€the€guilt€and€€€Ïsentencing€phases€of€his€trial€and€at€the€direct€appeal€of€thisÏmatter.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓWe€find€the€petitionerððs€complaint€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€theÏsentencing€phase€to€be€meritorious;€we€find€no€merit€in€any€of€his€other€allegations.€ÏWe€will€address€the€petitionerððs€issues€in€the€order€given€after€a€brief€recitation€of€theÏfacts.Ìà àÌà àà àOn€July€24,€1985,€the€petitioner€and€Terry€Flatt€were€riding€aroundÏtogether€in€the€petitioner's€truck€attending€to€some€of€Henley's€business€chores.€€FlattÏtestified€that€they€had€been€drinking€beer€and€taking€Dilaudid€(a€narcotic).€€Early€inÍthe€evening,€they€drove€up€Pine€Lick€Creek€Road€in€Jackson€County,€where€theÏpetitioner's€grandmother€lived.€€The€victims,€Fred€and€Edna€Stafford,€lived€on€theÏsame€road.€€A€short€distance€before€his€grandmother's€house,€but€after€passing€theÏStafford€residence,€Henley€let€Flatt€out€of€the€truck.€€Henley€then€proceeded€to€hisÏgrandmother's€house€where€he€spent€some€amount€of€time€less€than€an€hour.€€HeÏthen€returned€and€picked€Flatt€up€and€they€proceeded€back€down€the€road.Ìà àÌà àà àAccording€to€Flatt,€Henley€returned€with€a€.22€rifle.€€Flatt€testified€thatÏHenley€had€stopped€the€truck€and€loaded€this€rifle€shortly€before€reaching€theÏStafford€residence.€€Flatt€testified€that€Henley€had€also€poured€some€gasoline€out€ofÏa€five€gallon€can€into€a€smaller€plastic€jug.€€They€then€proceeded€to€the€StaffordÏhouse.€€Ìà àÌà àà àThe€Staffords€were€outside€as€the€petitioner€and€Flatt€reached€theirÏhouse.€€According€to€Flatt,€Henley€got€out€of€the€truck€and€told€the€Staffords€that€FlattÏwould€kill€him€if€they€didn't€give€him€money.€€He€then€told€Flatt€to€bring€the€.22€as€heÏwalked€the€Staffords€up€their€driveway.€€Flatt€testified€that,€as€they€had€all€gottenÏcloser€to€the€house,€Henley€took€the€rifle€away€from€him€and€told€Flatt€to€"go€back€toÏmy€truck€and€get€that€gallon€of€gas."€€Flatt€did€as€he€was€told€and€Henley€and€theÍStaffords€entered€the€house.Ìà àÌà àà àAs€Flatt€approached€the€house€with€the€gasoline,€he€saw€Henley€shootÏMr.€Stafford€with€the€rifle.€€Henley€next€shot€Mrs.€Stafford€with€the€rifle€and€then,€FlattÏtestified,€"he€took€out€his€pistol€and€he€shot€her€a€time€or€two€with€his€pistol."€€AfterÏshooting€the€Staffords,€Henley€told€Flatt€to€pour€out€the€gas.€€Flatt€poured€out€a€smallÏamount,€and€then€stopped.€€Henley€took€the€plastic€jug€containing€the€gas,€pouredÏthe€rest€of€it€out,€and€then€told€Flatt€to€"light€it."€€Flatt€refused,€and€Henley€struck€aÏmatch€and€set€fire€to€the€house.Ìà àÌà àà àHenley€and€Flatt€then€ran€to€the€truck€and€drove€away.€€While€they€wereÏdriving,€Henley€pulled€some€money€out€of€a€pocket€and€told€Flatt€to€count€it.€€FlattÏtestified€that€he€had€not€seen€that€money€on€Henley€before.€€After€they€had€drivenÏsome€distance,€Henley€stopped€the€truck€and€got€out€and€threw€the€rifle€and€pistol€offÏto€the€side€of€the€road.€€They€then€drove€on.Ìà àÌà àà àThe€fire€was€reported,€but€the€house€was€totally€consumed€by€theÏflames.€€Only€portions€of€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Stafford's€bodies€were€recovered.€€However,Ïsufficient€remains€existed€to€determine€that€Mr.€Stafford€died€of€a€bullet€woundÍthrough€the€heart€and€Mrs.€Stafford€died€of€burns€and€inhalation€of€noxious€gasses.Ìà àÌà àà àPursuant€to€a€plea€bargain€agreement,€Flatt€pled€guilty€to€two€counts€ofÏsecond„degree€murder,€two€counts€of€armed€robbery€and€one€count€of€aggravatedÏarson.€€Flatt€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I€offender€to€twenty„five€years€for€each€of€theÏmurders,€ten€years€for€each€of€the€robberies,€and€ten€years€for€the€arson,€all€to€runÏconcurrently.ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€Henley€testified€that€he€had€spent€the€day€with€Flatt€but€that€heÏhad€not€taken€any€Dilaudid€nor€been€intoxicated€with€alcohol.€€He€testified€that€heÏhad€asked€Flatt€to€get€out€of€his€truck€on€the€way€to€his€grandmotherððs€because€ofÏFlattððs€intoxicated€condition,€and€that€Flatt€had€taken€Henleyððs€.22€rifle€with€him,Ïostensibly€to€hunt.€€Henley€adamantly€denied€killing€the€Staffords€and€setting€theirÏhouse€on€fire.ÌÌà àà à"In€post„conviction€relief€proceedings€the€peti‚tioner€has€the€burden€ofÏproving€the€allegations€in€his€[or€her]€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence."€ÏòòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Fur‚thermore,€theÏfactual€findings€of€the€trial€court€in€hearings€"are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÍevidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment."€€òòState€v.€Bufordóó,€666€S.W.2d€473,Ï475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€claim€that€his€arrest€was€pretextual€rests€on€theÏgrounds€that€he€was€first€arrested€during€the€early€morning€hours€of€Friday,€July€26,Ï1985,€pursuant€to€an€outstanding€warrant€on€a€contempt€of€court€charge.€€We€firstÏnote€that€this€issue€was€not€raised€in€the€trial,€the€direct€appeal€of€this€case,€or€in€theÏpost„conviction€petition.€€Accordingly,€it€is€waived.€€T.R.A.P.€36.€€However,€even€if€thisÏissue€were€not€waived,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€any€relief€on€this€ground.Ìà àÌà àà à"The€fact€that€an€accused€has€been€unlawfully€arrested€only€becomesÏrelevant€when€evidence€tainted€by€the€unlawful€arrest€is€sought€to€be€introduced€byÏthe€state."€€òòCaldwell€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9405„CC„00099,€p.€12,€Madison€CountyÏ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€December€28,€1994,€at€Jackson).€€In€this€case,€the€petitionerÏcontends€that€he€was€questioned€about€the€fire€while€under€arrest€on€the€contempt€ofÏcourt€charge,€and€that€he€then€gave€a€statement€including€Terry€Flatt's€name.€ÏAccordingly,€the€petitioner€argues,€any€evidence€obtained€from€Flatt€is€tainted€suchÏthat€it€must€be€suppressed.€€However,€the€record€in€this€matter€is€unclear€as€to€theÏpetitioner's€arrest€status€at€the€time€he€spoke€of€Flatt.€€The€only€written€record€of€€theÍpetitioner's€statement€is€dated€July€30,€1985.€€Henley€testified€that€he€had€firstÏspoken€to€the€fire€inspector€"within€a€couple€of€days"€of€his€initial€arrest.€€Henley'sÏtestimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€also€indicates€that€he€was€arrested€a€secondÏtime€on€August€1,€1985.€€However,€there€is€no€testimony€as€to€when€Henley€wasÏreleased€after€his€first€arrest.€€Thus,€even€assuming€that€Henley's€arrest€on€theÏcontempt€of€court€charge€was€"pretextual,"€there€is€no€clear€proof€in€the€record€thatÏthe€petitioner€was€still€under€arrest€for€this€charge€at€the€time€he€informed€theÏauthorities€about€Flatt's€identity.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€complains€that€he€was€denied€due€process€when€aÏ.380€pistol€was€introduced€at€trial.€€Although€Flatt€testified€that€Henley€had€used€aÏpistol€to€shoot€Mrs.€Stafford,€and€although€the€pistol€introduced€at€trial€was€recoveredÏin€the€area€where€Flatt€said€Henley€had€thrown€the€guns,€Flatt€was€not€able€to€identifyÏit.€€Nor€were€any€bullets€or€shell€casings€recovered€from€the€crime€site€that€were€firedÏfrom€this€pistol.€€The€petitioner's€trial€counsel€did€not€object€to€the€introduction€of€theÏpistol€into€evidence.Ìà àÌà àà àThis€issue€was€not€raised€on€direct€appeal€or€in€the€post„convictionÏpetition,€and€is€therefore€waived.€€Even€if€it€were€not€waived,€however,€this€issue€isÍwithout€merit.€€Ìà àÌà àà àAlthough€Flatt€was€unable€to€identify€the€pistol€as€the€one€which€HenleyÏfired,€it€was€found€where€Flatt€had€told€authorities€it€would€be€found.€€It€was€alsoÏfound€in€the€vicinity€of€the€.22€rifle.€€These€facts€were€sufficient€to€meet€the€definitionÏof€"relevance"€set€forth€in€Fed.€R.€Evid.€401,€adopted€by€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòStateÏv.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978).€€Had€an€objection€been€made,€the€trialÏcourt€would€had€to€have€determined€that€the€probative€value€of€the€pistol€wasÏsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€"danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,Ïor€misleading€the€jury€.€.€.€.€"€in€order€to€rule€it€inadmissible.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Evid.€403,Ïalso€adopted€by€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Banksóó.€€We€do€not€think€that€it€wouldÏhave€been€an€abuse€of€discretion€for€the€trial€court€to€have€overruled€an€objection.€ÏThat€no€bullets€or€shell€casings€matching€the€pistol€were€found€at€the€remains€of€theÏStafford€residence,€and€Flatt's€inability€to€identify€the€pistol,€were€matters€for€the€juryÏto€take€into€consideration€in€determining€the€weight€of€this€particular€piece€ofÏevidence.€€€€Ìà àÌà àà àFurthermore,€even€if€the€pistol€should€have€been€excluded,€theÏ"improper€admission€or€rejection€of€evidence€is€not€grounds€for€reversal€unless€itÍshall€affirmatively€appear€that€the€alleged€error€affected€the€result€of€the€trial."€€òòStateÏv.€Horneóó,€652€S.W.2d€916,€919€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€No€such€affirmativeÏshowing€has€been€made€here.€€Since€there€was€sufficient€proof€at€trial€from€which€theÏjury€could€reasonably€have€concluded€that€Mr.€Stafford€had€been€killed€by€a€shotÏfrom€the€rifle€and€that€Mrs.€Stafford€had€been€killed€by€the€fire,€there€was€sufficientÏevidence,€even€absent€the€pistol,€for€the€jury€to€convict€Henley€of€two€counts€of€first„degree€murder.€€€€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€complains€that€he€was€denied€a€fair€trial€when,Ïduring€final€arguments,€the€trial€judge€stated€that€a€defendant€serving€a€life€sentenceÏwould€be€eligible€to€be€considered€for€parole€after€serving€thirty„five€years.€€ThisÏissue€was€raised€in€the€direct€appeal€and€denied.€€Accordingly,€we€consider€itÏpreviously€determined€and€decline€to€re„examine€it.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„111€(1990).Ìà àà àà àÌà àà àAs€to€the€petitioner's€contention€that€he€was€denied€due€process€by€theÏState's€provision€to€him€of€certain€medication€during€his€trial,€we€find€that€this€case€isÏdistinguishable€from€òòRiggins€v.€Nevadaóó,€504€U.S.€127,€112€S.Ct.€1810€(1992),€andÏthat€no€denial€of€due€process€occurred.€€In€òòRigginsóó,€the€defendant€had€beenÏprescribed€and€was€taking€thioridazine,€an€antipsychotic€drug.€€He€was€taking€thisÍdrug€at€the€time€he€was€determined€competent€to€stand€trial.€€Following€hisÏcompetency€hearing,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€in€the€District€Court€for€an€orderÏsuspending€administration€of€the€drug,€contending€that€its€effect€on€his€demeanorÏand€mental€state€during€his€trial€would€deny€him€due€process.€€The€District€CourtÏdenied€the€defendant's€motion,€with€no€explanation€of€its€rationale,€and€theÏdefendant€continued€to€receive€the€drug€throughout€his€trial.Ìà àà àÌà àà àThe€Supreme€Court€held€that€"once€Riggins€moved€to€terminateÏadministration€of€antipsychotic€medication,€the€State€became€obligated€to€establishÏthe€need€for€[it]€and€the€medical€appropriateness€of€the€drug."€€504€U.S.€at€____,€112ÏS.Ct.€at€1815.€€Because€the€record€before€the€Court€contained€no€findings€that€wouldÏhave€supported€a€conclusion€that€the€continued€administration€of€the€medication€wasÏnecessary€to€accomplish€an€essential€state€policy,€the€defendant's€convictions€wereÏreversed€and€his€case€remanded.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€before€us,€Henley€was€taking€Xanax€and€P.V.€Tussin€beforeÏand€during€the€course€of€his€trial.€€Xanax€is€an€antianxiety€medication€and€P.V.ÏTussin€is€a€cough€syrup€which€contained€alcohol€and€"a€narcotic€coughÏsuppressant."€€The€expert€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€established€thatÍthese€drugs€could€have€had€an€adverse€effect€on€both€the€petitioner's€demeanor€andÏon€his€ability€to€fully€participate€in€his€own€defense.€€However,€there€is€no€proof€in€theÏrecord€that€Henley€was€being€medicated€against€his€will.€€According€to€Dr.€Byrne,€theÏprescribing€physician,€the€petitioner€requested€medication€for€his€nervousness,Ïanxiety€and€sleeplessness.€€òòœCf›.óó€òòGroseclose€v.€Bellóó,€895€F.Supp.€935,€949€(M.D.Tenn.Ï1995)€("[the€defendant]€did€not€request€the€medication€.€.€.€[,€œt]here›€was€noÏappointment€requested€by€[the€defendant]€and€[he]€never€asked€for€or€indicated€thatÏhe€was€having€any€trouble€sleeping.").€€Henley€specifically€requested€Valium,€but€Dr.ÏByrne€prescribed€Xanax€instead€because€it€did€not€have€the€dependency€potential€ofÏValium.€€The€P.V.€Tussin€was€prescribed€in€response€to€the€petitioner's€complaint€ofÏa€cough€and€his€specific€request€for€a€medication€with€hydrocodone,€which€P.V.ÏTussin€contained.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€the€record€before€us,€we€cannot€find€that€Henley's€own€behavior€inÏrequesting€and€taking€these€medications€violated€his€due€process€rights.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€To€do€soÏwould€be€to€indicate€that€an€accused€could€request€medication€on€the€grounds€ofÏhaving€difficulty€sleeping,€excessive€nervousness,€high€anxiety,€depression,€etc.,€andÍthen€claim€that€he€was€denied€a€fair€trial€because€of€the€medication's€impact€on€hisÏability€to€participate€in€his€own€defense€and/or€because€of€the€medicationððs€adverseÏeffect€on€his€credibility.€€If€the€State€refused€to€administer€such€medication€out€ofÏconcern€that€the€accused€would€make€such€a€claim,€the€accused€could€then€argueÏthat€he€had€been€denied€his€due€process€rights€to€proper€medical€care.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€In€otherÏwords,€granting€Henley€relief€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case€would€create€anÏunacceptable€risk€of€deliberate€manipulation€of€State„provided€health€care€servicesÏin€an€attempt€to€create€grounds€for€attacking€a€conviction.€€Such€a€result€is€untenableÏand€not€required€by€our€Constitutions.ÌÌ€€€€€à àà àAs€to€the€petitioner's€contention€that€the€State€withheld€exculpatoryÏevidence€in€violation€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963),€by€not€informing€hisÏtrial€counsel€about€the€medication€that€he€was€taking,€we€also€find€this€issue€to€beÏwaived.€€Moreover,€this€issue€fails€on€the€merits.€€Evidence€required€to€be€providedÏunder€òòBradyóó€"must€be€favorable€to€the€accused,€his€defense,€or€the€sentence€that€willÏbe€imposed€if€found€guilty."€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€845€S.W.2d€228,€232€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1992).€€The€petitioner€argues€that€evidence€of€the€medication€he€was€takingÍduring€his€trial€was€favorable€because€it€explained€his€demeanor€which,€according€toÏHenley's€offer€of€proof€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€at€least€some€of€the€jurorsÏfound€objectionable.€€ÌÌà àà à€€However,€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record€that€the€prosecution€wasÏaware€of€the€òòeffectsóó€of€these€drugs,€and€it€is€only€their€effects€which€arguablyÏconstituted€favorable€evidence.€€Sheriff€Mehaney€testified€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing€that€he€knew€nothing€about€the€effects€of€the€drugs€his€prisoner€was€taking.€ÏHe€also€testified€that€he€noticed€no€changes€in€Henleyððs€behavior€as€a€result€ofÏtaking€the€drugs.€€The€only€person€who€arguably€knew€that€the€medication€couldÏaffect€Henley's€credibility€such€that€it€was€"exculpatory"€to€begin€with,€was€theÏphysician€who€prescribed€it.€€However,€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record€that€this€personÏwas€under€the€control€of€the€prosecution,€and€the€duty€to€disclose€does€not€arise€asÏto€information€"which€is€not€possessed€by€or€under€the€control€of€the€prosecution."€ÏòòState€v.€Marshallóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€233.€€Moreover,€the€duty€to€disclose€does€not€ariseÏas€to€information€"that€the€accused€already€possesses€or€is€able€to€obtain."€€òòId.óó€€ThereÏis€no€contention€here€that€Henley€did€not€know€he€was€taking€the€medication.€ÏMoreover,€there€is€proof€in€the€record€that€Henley€understood€the€medicationððsÏsoothing€effects€on€him.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€claims€he€was€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€trial€byÏjury€because€of€the€trial€court's€dismissal€of€jurors€opposed€to€the€death€penalty.€ÏBecause€this€issue€was€not€raised€on€direct€appeal,€it€is€waived.€T.R.A.P.€36.€€ThisÏissue€is€also€without€merit.€€It€is€proper€for€a€court€to€excuse€jurors€who€indicate€thatÏthey€will€not€vote€for€the€death€penalty€regardless€of€their€instructions.€€òòMorgan€v.ÏIllinoisóó,€504€U.S.€719,€728,€112€S.Ct.€2222,€2229€(1992).€€Furthermore,€"the€trialÏcourt's€finding€on€this€issue€is€to€be€accorded€a€presumption€of€€correctnessÏinasmuch€as€such€findings€involve€a€determination€of€demeanor€and€credibilityÏparticularly€within€the€trial€court's€province€and€.€.€.€the€burden€rests€on€the€[petitioner]Ïto€establish€by€convincing€evidence€that€the€court's€determination€was€erroneous."€ÏòòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€64€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€meetÏthis€burden.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€the€sole€aggravating€factor€relied€onÏby€the€State€in€this€case€was€unconstitutional.€€In€seeking€the€death€penalty,€theÏState€argued€that€the€murders€of€Fred€and€Edna€Stafford€were€each€"especiallyÍheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€[each]€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind."œ× ƒ2 ××  ×›€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„2„203(œi›)(5)€(1982).€The€petitioner's€claim€that€this€aggravating€factor€wasÏunconstitutional€was€denied€by€our€Supreme€Court€in€the€direct€appeal€of€this€case.€ÏFurther,€we€are€bound€by€our€Supreme€Court's€subsequent€holdings€that€thisÏaggravating€factor€passes€constitutional€muster.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€œHines›óó,€___ÏS.W.2d€___€(Tenn.€1995),€aff'd€on€reh'g,€___€S.W.2d€___€(1996);€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€___ÏS.W.2d€___€(Tenn.€1994),€reh'g€granted;€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.Ï1991);€òòState€v.€œTeel›óó,€793€S.W.2d€236€(Tenn.€1990),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€498€U.S.€1007Ï(1990);€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€497€U.S.Ï1031€(1990).€€ÌÌà àà àHenley€also€complains€about€the€trial€court's€jury€instructionsÏconcerning€mitigating€circumstances.€€Again,€this€issue€was€previously€determined€inÏthe€direct€appeal€of€this€case€and€we€decline€to€readdress€it€here.€ÌÌà àà àWe€also€decline€to€disagree€with€our€Supreme€Court's€repeatedÏholdings€that€Tennessee's€death€penalty€statutes€are€constitutional.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòStateÏv.€œHowell›óó,€868€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€62€œU.S.L.W.›€3624€(1994);ÏòòState€v.€Van€œTran›óó,€864€S.W.2d€465€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€62€œU.S.L.W.›€3691Ï(1994);€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àà àResolution€of€the€foregoing€issues€leaves€us€with€the€petitioner'sÏprimary€complaint,€to„wit,€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€hisÏtrial.€€We€must€first€note€that€James€H.€Reneau,€III,€who€represented€Henley€at€his€trialÏand€on€direct€appeal,€died€before€he€was€able€to€testify€in€this€proceeding.€ÏAccordingly,€we€are€constrained€in€our€ability€to€examine€the€reasons€behind€any€ofÏMr.€Reneau's€actions.€€We€do,€however,€have€the€benefit€of€a€copy€of€Mr.€Reneau'sÏentire€file€in€this€matter.ÌÌà àà à€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€claims€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€inÏthe€following€ways:ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° Ò1.€€He€failed€to€assemble€a€"defense€team,"€including€a€secondÏlawyer,€a€mental€health€expert,€an€investigator,€an€arson€expert,Ïand€"others";ÌÌ2.€€He€did€not€conduct€sufficient€investigation€into€the€case,Ïincluding€"appropriate"€interviews€with€Henley;ÌÌ3.€€There€was€no€attempted€negotiation€toward€a€plea€bargain;ÌÌ4.€€He€did€not€challenge€Henley's€arrest€on€the€contempt€of€courtÏcharge;ÌÌ5.€€He€failed€to€keep€out€of€evidence€the€pistol€and€mention€of€a€€€€€€Ïpolygraph€exam;ÌÌ6.€€He€failed€to€move€for€a€change€of€venue;ÌÌ7.€€He€did€not€attempt€to€rehabilitate€jurors€excused€by€the€court€€€€€€Ïbecause€of€their€views€on€the€death€penalty;ÌÌ8.€€He€"never€developed€a€strategy"€in€the€case;ÌÌ9.€€He€made€no€opening€statement€to€the€jury;ÌÌ10.€€He€did€not€request€a€jury€instruction€on€voluntary€intoxication;ÏandÌÌ11.€€He€did€not€prepare€adequately€for€the€sentencing€hearing,Ïand€did€not€effectively€represent€the€petitioner€at€the€sentencingÏhearing.ÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÌÌÓÓThe€petitioner€also€claims€that€Mr.€Reneau€was€ineffective€on€the€direct€appeal€of€thisÏmatter.ÌÌà àà àIn€reviewing€the€petitioner's€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffectiveÍassistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€deter‚mine€whether€the€advice€given€orÏservices€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€ToÏprevail€on€a€claim€of€inef‚fective€counsel,€a€petitioner€"must€show€that€counsel'sÏrepresenta‚tion€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reason‚ableness"€and€that€thisÏperformance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€There€must€to€be€a€reasonable€probability€thatÏbut€for€coun‚sel's€error€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708ÏS.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).ÌÌà àà à€€When€deciding€whether€counsel's€performance€was€deficient,€"everyÏeffort€[must]€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€theÏcircumstances€of€counsel's€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€fromÏcounsel's€perspective€at€the€time."€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€689.€€"Thus,Ïthe€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€even€hurt€the€defense€does€not,Ïalone,€support€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance.ðð€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,Ï528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€We€must€defer€to€trial€strategy€and€tactical€choicesÏwhen€they€are€informed€ones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€€òòId.óó€€òòSee€alsoóóÏòòœHellard›€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4€(Tenn.€1982).ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€we€are€bound€by€the€lower€court's€findings€unless€theÏpetitioner€carries€his€burden€of€illustrating€that€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€judgment€entered.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).à àÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€petitioner's€claim€that€his€trial€counsel€wasÏineffective€for€failing€to€develop€a€trial€strategy,€we€find€that€the€record€belies€thisÏassertion.€€It€is€obvious€that€trial€counsel€intended€to€discredit€Flatt€and€to€createÏreasonable€doubt€through€attacking€the€State's€case€at€every€opportunity.€€ThisÏstrategy€included€attacking€Flatt's€version€of€the€events€and€his€credibility;€attackingÏthe€identification€and/or€the€relevance€of€the€guns;€attacking€the€State's€investigationÏof€the€fire;€and€presenting€the€testimony€of€the€petitioner.€€That€trial€counsel's€strategyÏwas€not€successful€does€not€mean€that€there€was€no€strategy€at€all.€€The€petitionerÏhas€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€proving€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏlower€court's€findings€in€this€regard.ÌÌà àà àTrial€counsel's€strategic€decision€not€to€move€for€a€change€of€venueÏwas€a€valid€tactical€choice.€€Henley€testified€that€Mr.€Reneau€had€told€him€that€heÏwanted€the€trial€to€be€where€Henley€had€been€born€and€raised.€€Obviously,€Mr.ÍReneau€considered,€and€rejected,€attempting€to€move€the€trial.€€Similarly,€counsel'sÏchoice€not€to€make€an€opening€statement€was€not€shown€to€be€ineffective.€€The€StateÏintroduced€expert€evidence€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€experienced€criminalÏdefense€attorneys€occasionally€choose€not€to€make€an€opening€statement€forÏstrategic€reasons.€€Of€course,€the€petitioner€introduced€expert€testimony€contendingÏthat€an€opening€statement€is€crucial€to€the€defense.€€Since€it€is€the€petitioner's€burdenÏof€proving€the€ineffectiveness€of€his€counsel,€and€since€Henley€has€shown€noÏprejudice€attaching€particularly€to€Mr.€Reneau's€failure€to€make€an€openingÏstatement,€we€cannot€find€that,€in€this€regard,€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€lower€court's€decision€that€Henley€received€competent€counsel€at€the€trial.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Reneau's€decision€not€to€attempt€to€rehabilitate€jurors€excused€byÏthe€court€because€of€their€views€on€the€death€penalty€was€also€a€valid€choice.€€òòSeeóóÏòòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€535€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(Trial€attorney€"notÏœfault[ed›]"€for€not€attempting€to€rehabilitate€prospective€jurors€who€stated€that€theyÏwould€not€impose€the€death€penalty€regardless€of€the€evidence.)€€Moreover,€there€isÏno€proof€in€the€record€that€any€attempted€rehabilitation€would€have€been€successful,Ïhence€no€prejudice€from€Mr.€Reneau's€"omission"€has€been€shown.ÌÌà àà àTrial€counsel's€decision€not€to€request€a€jury€instruction€on€theÏpetitioner's€alleged€intoxication€at€the€time€of€the€offenses€was€also€a€valid€tacticalÏchoice.€€The€petitioner€consistently€and€adamantly€maintained€that€he€had€not€beenÏintoxicated€at€the€time.€€Although€trial€counsel€could€legitimately€have€requested€theÏjury€instruction€as€a€way€of€"hedging€his€bets"€against€the€possibility€that€the€juryÏwould€believe€Flatt€rather€than€his€own€client,€we€decline€to€find€that€his€choiceÏconstituted€deficient€performance.€€Had€Mr.€Reneau€argued€voluntary€intoxication,€heÏran€the€risk€of€being€perceived€as€not€believing€his€own€client:€€a€classic€"damned€ifÏyou€do€and€damned€if€you€don't"€situation.€€Mr.€Reneau's€choice€was€reasonableÏunder€the€circumstances.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€complaint€that€Mr.€Reneau€was€ineffective€because€heÏdid€not€attempt€to€negotiate€a€plea€is€not€supported€by€anything€in€the€recordÏindicating€that€such€an€attempt€might€have€been€successful.€€Attorney€GeneralÏThompson,€who€also€prosecuted€the€case€against€Henley,€stated€during€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€a€plea€bargain€"wasn't€an€option"€and€Henley€testified€that€heÏwould€not€have€pled€guilty€to€anything€before€his€trial€because€he€was€innocent.€ÏAccordingly,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€any€prejudice€resulting€from€thisÏalleged€deficiency.ÌÌà àà àSimilarly,€as€set€forth€above,€the€record€does€not€support€theÏpetitioner's€claim€that€tainted€evidence€was€obtained€during€a€pretextual€arrest.€ÏAccordingly,€no€showing€of€prejudice€has€been€made€from€trial€counsel's€failure€toÏchallenge€this€arrest.ÌÌà àà àAs€to€Henley's€claim€that€counsel€was€deficient€in€failing€to€keep€out€theÏpistol,€we€agree€that€an€objection€to€its€admissibility€should€have€been€made.× ƒ3 ××  ×€ÏHowever,€Mr.€Reneau€did€an€effective€job€of€challenging€the€materiality€of€the€pistol,Ïand€the€record€does€not€demonstrate€that€the€result€of€the€trial€would€probably€haveÏbeen€different€had€the€pistol€been€excluded.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€petitionerÏwas€not€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€this€regard.Ìà àà à€€Ìà àà àHenley€also€fails€to€show€how€his€trial€counsel€was€deficient€in€failing€toÏkeep€out€Flatt's€offhand€reference€to€a€period€of€time€when€he€and€Henley€wereÏwaiting€in€a€room€"for€the€polygraph€test."€€This€reference€could€not€have€beenÍanticipated€from€the€question€asked€Flatt,€and€an€objection€arguably€would€simplyÏhave€drawn€more€attention€to€it.€€Similarly,€Chief€Deputy€Clifton€Long's€reference€to€aÏpolygraph€test€was€offhand€and€could€not€have€been€anticipated€from€the€questionÏasked.€€No€witness€testified€that€the€tests€had€actually€been€administered,€or€as€to€theÏresults€of€any€polygraph€tests.€€Counsel€was€not€deficient€in€this€regard.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€we€address€Henley's€contention€that€his€trial€counsel€did€notÏadequately€investigate€or€prepare€his€case.€€With€respect€to€the€guilt€phase€of€theÏtrial,€we€do€not€find€that€the€petitioner€has€carried€his€burden€of€overcoming€the€trialÏcourt's€findings€that€Mr.€Reneau€was€not€deficient€in€his€investigation€and€preparationÏof€this€case€for€failing€to€interview€him€more€"appropriately,"€to€request€an€additionalÏlawyer€on€the€case,€or€for€failing€to€otherwise€assemble€what€the€petitioner€calls€aÏ"defense€team."€€Henley€has€not€shown€any€prejudice€stemming€directly€from€Mr.ÏReneau's€decision€to€try€this€case€by€himself.€€Additionally,€while€Mr.€Reneau€did€notÏhire€the€arson€expert€that€the€petitioner's€post„conviction€counsel€did,× ƒ4 ××  ×€Mr.€ReneauÏdid€offer€some€effective€expert€testimony€challenging€the€State's€investigation€of€theÏfire.€Mr.€Reneau€also€did€an€effective€job€of€cross„examining€the€State's€witness€whoÍconducted€the€fire€investigation.€ÌÌà àà àAs€to€Mr.€Reneau's€failure€to€discover€and€investigate€the€petitioner'sÏmedicated€state€during€the€trial,€the€record€simply€does€not€support€a€finding€that€Mr.ÏReneau€was€deficient€because€he€did€not€notice€that€his€client€was€under€theÏinfluence€of€drugs.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€The€petitioner€repeatedly€denied€abusing€drugs,€and€neverÏdisclosed€to€Mr.€Reneau€that€he€was€currently€taking€medication.€€Other€thanÏHenley's€mother€and€ex„wife's€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€"justÏdidn't€act€himself"€and€that€he€acted€"[œl]ike›€he€was€drugged"€before€the€trial,€theÏrecord€is€bereft€of€any€proof€that€Henley€was€behaving€in€such€a€way€that€shouldÏhave€alerted€his€counsel€to€inquire€as€to€his€health.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€Indeed,€the€sheriff€in€charge€ofÏthe€jail€where€Henley€awaited€trial€testified€that€he€hadnððt€noticed€any€change€inÏHenley's€behavior€when€he€was€taking€the€medication.€€Apparently,€neither€did€Mr.ÍReneau,€who€had€been€meeting€with€Henley€since€August€1985.€€Henley€startedÏtaking€the€medication€at€issue€in€December€1985.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€are€disturbed€about€the€possible€effects€that€the€drugs€had€on€theÏpetitioner's€demeanor€at€trial€and€that€there€was€no€testimony€explaining€theseÏeffects€to€the€jury.€€We€are€similarly€disturbed€that€the€petitioner's€attorney€had€noÏpsychological€or€psychiatric€evaluation€done€on€his€client€before€trial€which€mightÏhave€resulted€in€Henley€being€taken€off€of€the€drugs,€or€at€least€in€an€explanationÏabout€their€effects.€€We€are€disturbed€that€Henley's€attorney,€apparently,€was€notÏaware€that€his€client€was€taking€these€drugs.€€However,€we€are€unwilling€to€hold€thatÏMr.€Reneau's€performance€was€deficient€because€he€failed€to€discern€or€investigateÏhis€client's€medicated€state,€particularly€in€a€case€such€as€this€where€there€is€reasonÏto€believe€that€the€client€might€have€lied€upon€simple€inquiry.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€Moreover,€theÏpetitioner€has€to€bear€some€responsibility€for€his€own€failure€to€inform€his€attorneyÏabout€the€medications€he€was€taking.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Russellóó,€866€S.W.2d€578,Ï583€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)€(counsel€not€ineffective€for€failing€to€attack€priorÏconvictions€on€grounds€that€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€narcotics€at€theÍtime€she€pled€guilty€where€the€defendant€never€told€her€attorney€that€she€had€beenÏunder€the€influence€at€the€time.);€òòœCf›.óó€òòGroseclose€v.€Bellóó,€895€F.Supp.€935,€950Ï(M.D.Tenn.€1995)€(ineffective€assistance€where,€among€other€things,€the€defendantÏtold€his€lawyer€that€the€State€was€giving€him€medication€which€he€had€neverÏrequested,€but€which€had€been€prescribed,€and€counsel€simply€responded€ð ðthen€takeÏitðð).€€Finally,€even€if€Mr.€Reneau's€performance€in€this€regard€was€deficient,€HenleyÏhas€failed€to€show€a€reasonable€probability€that€his€medicated€state€had€an€adverseÏeffect€on€the€outcome€of€his€trial.€€It€is€quite€possible€that€Henley's€demeanor€whileÏnot€on€medication€would€have€been€equally€unappealing€to€the€jury.× ƒ8 ××  ×ÌÌà àà àThe€record€does€not€support€a€finding€of€deficient€investigation€into€anyÏother€aspect€of€the€guilt€phase€of€Henley's€trial.ÌÌà àà àAs€to€Henley's€contention€that€Mr.€Reneau€was€also€ineffective€on€theÏdirect€appeal€of€this€matter,€we€find€this€issue€without€merit.€€We€have€addressed€allÏof€the€issues€which€Henley€claims€should€have€been€raised€in€the€direct€appeal,€butÏweren't,€and€found€that€they€do€not€afford€him€any€grounds€for€relief.€€The€petitionerÍtherefore€suffered€no€prejudice€from€Mr.€Reneau's€decision€not€to€include€them€in€theÏappeal.€€Accordingly,€Henleyððs€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€on€appealÏfails.€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993).€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àWe€affirm€the€lower€court's€judgment€that€Henley€is€not€entitled€to€anyÏpost„conviction€relief€with€respect€to€his€convictions.ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial,€however,€we€find€thatÏMr.€Reneau's€investigation€and€preparation€were€constitutionally€deficient.€€Our€CourtÏhas€recognized€thatÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ  Ò'[a]€lawyer€also€has€a€substantial€and€important€role€toÏperform€in€raising€mitigating€factors€both€to€the€prosecutorÏinitially€and€to€the€court€at€sentencing.€€This€cannotÏeffectively€be€done€on€the€basis€of€broad€generalÏemotional€appeals€or€on€the€strength€of€statements€madeÏto€the€lawyer€by€the€defendant.€€Information€concerning€theÏdefendant's€background,€education,€employment€record,Ïmental€and€emotional€stability,€family€relationships,€and€theÏlike,€will€be€relevant,€as€will€mitigating€circumstancesÏsurrounding€the€commission€of€the€offense€itself.€ÏInvestigation€is€essential€to€fulfillment€of€these€functions.'ÌÌòòÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓœAdkins›€v.€Stateóó,€No.€œ03C01›„9106„CR„00164,€pp.€42„3,€Washington€County€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€filed€December€2,€1994,€at€Knoxville)€(citation€omitted).€€€PersonalÍbackground€and€character€information€are€highly€relevant€at€a€capital€sentencingÏhearing€"because€of€the€belief,€long€held€by€this€society,€that€defendants€who€commitÏcriminal€acts€that€are€attributable€to€a€disadvantaged€background,€or€to€emotionalÏand€mental€problems,€may€be€less€culpable€than€defendants€who€have€no€suchÏexcuse."€€òòCalifornia€v.€Brownóó,€479€U.S.€538,€545€(1987)€(OððConnor,€J.,€concurring).€ÌÌà àà àAlthough€many€of€Henley's€family€members,€including€his€mother,Ïtestified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€they€would€have€been€willing€to€testify€onÏHenley's€behalf€had€they€been€asked,€Mr.€Reneau€spoke€to€none€of€them€prior€to€theÏsentencing€hearing.€€Mr.€Reneau€called€the€petitioner's€mother€to€the€stand€at€theÏsentencing€hearing€without€ever€having€spoken€to€her€about€testifying.€€NotÏunderstanding€what€was€expected€of€her,€she€refused€„„€in€front€of€the€jury€„„€to€testify.€ÏWe€do€not€think€it€is€assuming€too€much€to€conclude€that€a€jury€is€going€to€beÏprejudiced€against€a€defendant€upon€that€person's€own€mother€refusing€to€testify€onÏhis€or€her€behalf.× ƒ9 ××  ×€ÌÌà àà àHad€they€been€prepared€and€called€at€the€sentencing€hearing,ÍHenley's€family€members€would€have€testified€that€they€loved€the€petitioner;€that€heÏwas€a€good€and€loving€man;€that€he€was€not€a€violent€man;€that€the€offenses€of€whichÏhe€was€convicted€were€totally€out€of€character€for€him;€and€that€they€were€shocked€byÏhis€arrest.€€They€would€have€pled€for€his€life.€€Additionally,€the€petitioner€producedÏevidence€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€other€potentially€mitigating€evidenceÏexisted€that€would€have€been€discovered€had€Mr.€Reneau€conducted€a€moreÏthorough€investigation.€€Expert€testimony€indicated€the€possibility€that€Henley€hadÏsuffered€from€depression,€alcohol€and€drug€abuse,€and€learning€disabilities.€€InÏgrade€school,€Henley's€I.Q.€tested€at€89.€€He€dropped€out€of€high€school€after€theÏtenth€grade.€€Not€long€before€the€murders,€Henley€suffered€severe€financial€losses,Ïwas€forced€to€file€bankruptcy,€and€lost€the€family€farm.€€All€of€this€would€have€beenÏproper€testimony€for€mitigation.€€òòœEddings›€v.€Oklahomaóó,€455€U.S.€104,€117€(1982)€(theÏConstitution€requires€the€œsentencer›€to€ð ðconsider€and€weigh€all€of€the€mitigatingÏevidence€concerning€the€petitionerððs€family€background€and€personal€history.ðð)Ï(OððConnor,€J.,€concurring);€òòœLockett›€v.€Ohioóó,€438€U.S.€586€(1978).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€spite€of€all€the€mitigating€evidence€available,€only€two€people€testifiedÏon€Henley's€behalf€at€the€sentencing€hearing:€€Henley€himself€and€his€grandmother.€ÏThe€jury€had€already€indicated€that€it€did€not€believe€Henley€when€it€convicted€him.€€ÍAccordingly,€it€is€reasonable€to€presume€that€Henley's€testimony€at€his€sentencingÏhearing€would€not€have€been€particularly€persuasive.€€It€is€also€possible,€if€not€likely,Ïthat€Henley's€grandmother€was€viewed€with€a€certain€amount€of€hostility€becauseÏFlatt€Ñ 4 ÑÑ Ü Ñtestified€that€it€was€on€her€behalf€that€Henley€had€felt€compelled€to€attack€theÏStaffords.€€Thus,€of€all€the€people€that€Mr.€Reneau€had€available€to€him,€the€only€twoÏthat€testified€were€arguably€the€two€least€helpful.€€ÌÌà àà à"When€the€record€shows€a€substantial€deficiency€in€investigation,€theÏnormal€deference€afforded€trial€counsel's€strategies€is€particularly€inappropriate€.€.€.€.Ï[This]€Court€will€not€credit€a€strategic€choice€by€counsel€when€counsel€'did€not€evenÏknow€what€evidence€was€available.'€"€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€530€(citationÏomitted).€€The€record€in€this€case€shows€such€a€substantial€deficiency.€€NoÏpsychological€or€psychiatric€evaluation€was€done€on€Henley.€€Other€than€Henley'sÏgrandmother,€Mr.€Reneau€did€not€speak€with€Henley's€family€members€prior€to€theÏsentencing€hearing.€€There€is€no€evidence€from€Mr.€Reneau's€file€or€otherwise€that€heÏinvestigated€Henley's€educational€background,€employment€history,€€or€that€heÏspoke€with€members€of€the€community€familiar€with€Henley.€€He€"€'should€haveÏinvestigated€his€background,€checked€his€school€records,€.€.€.€his€medical€history,Ïtried€to€find€witnesses€to€demonstrate€all€aspects€of€his€character.€€[He]€should€haveÏrequested€a€psychological€evaluation.'"€€òòBell€v.€Stateóó,€No.€œ03C01›„9210„CR„00364,€p.Í42,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€March€15,€1995,€at€Knoxville),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€(quoting€the€court€below).€€€€€ÌÌà àà àWhile€we€have€held€that€Mr.€Reneau's€failure€to€investigate€his€client'sÏmental€health€was€not€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€with€respect€to€the€guiltÏphase€of€this€trial,€we€do€find€that€it€was€ineffective€with€respect€to€the€sentencingÏphase.ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ ° Ò"[T]here€is€a€qualitative€difference€between€obtainingÏpsychological€information€for€the€purpose€of€preparing€a€defenseÏto€the€charges€and€using€such€evidence€for€the€purpose€ofÏmitigating€the€punishment.€€Thus,€it€is€not€incompatible€to€presentÏevidence€of€psychological€or€mental€impairment€duringÏsentencing,€even€where€a€defense€of€factual€innocence€has€beenÏinterposed€at€the€guilt€phase."€ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓòòBell€v.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó€at€46€(citation€omitted).€€Combined€with€Mr.€Reneau's€failure€toÏinvestigate€Henley's€family's€availability€and€willingness€to€testify,€and€his€failure€toÏinvestigate€other€aspects€of€Henley's€past,€Mr.€Reneau€failed€to€meet€the€level€ofÏcompetence€required€by€attorneys€representing€clients€at€the€sentencing€phase€whoÏare€faced€with€the€death€penalty.€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Terryóó,€813€S.W.2d€420,€425€(Tenn.Ï1991)€(the€qualitative€difference€between€the€death€penalty€and€all€otherÏpunishments€requires€greater€reliability€in€the€sentencing€determination).ÌÌà àà àWe€also€find€that€Mr.€Reneauððs€deficient€performance€at€the€sentencingÏphase€prejudiced€the€petitioner.€€The€petitioner€made€an€offer€of€proof€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€the€jury€considered€the€fact€that€Henley's€mother€refused€toÏtestify€on€her€son's€behalf.€€Even€without€this€offer€of€proof,€we€hold€that€the€dearth€ofÏfavorable€testimony€offered€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€when€significant€amounts€ofÏfavorable€testimony€were€available,€establishes€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€forÏMr.€Reneau's€deficient€performance€with€respect€to€the€sentencing€phase€of€Henley'sÏtrial,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.œ× ƒ: ××  ×›ÌÌà àà à€€We€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€lower€court'sÏfinding€that€Henley€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€sentencing,€andÏaccordingly€reverse€that€portion€of€the€decision€below,€vacate€the€petitioner's€deathÏsentence€and€remand€this€matter€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÑ ` ÑCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJOSEPH€H.€WALKER€III,€Special€Judge