ÿWPCÏ }¹Ø3ÚŒJ«£J̳R®âM’•joÒ=ð8àH…îÌs÷YslΕ6œ‚cugæ}ۆўu*êúªñEN « û…:Ö¹|2eÇœ<`£)áC  „·¶Óap:ãªe¹ï\èÔ5”Ó,áëã#‰P&0“œYú ɨ1“Åïí(øÏ‚Óa(ÆշｪÚU‚|lyR%·˜®åÐ4Øë/ HÊ|ó1{q¤]ø­ìââC1<‚óù­;ý¡€sÁt9¬DUœ\›HFÊëæ%ÍúªN’Üw„ÄÍ z, qáR›ï“ _¿þ”Mˆ¸ÁÓïãÍ6[/fíS&'ÁBLÕ#Z-Z @üÑÛi•}lG¯ë-!á7xênd*/¦A¨©ŽéÖ½œ‚+Þu‚{ǘ%„Edû¿¡Üªc(Á0G¾7Qäa£¶Øí= Vþ]“L•›wä` %@U:F 0(€UN¨ö1øw) 4- A P mR #!i 0lŠ 0Dö í: ' N/ W1 ˆ^  Bœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ AQ¹Æ  0DÐ 0D 0DXX D3œX, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular($¡¡(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular øÒ°ÒÒ8°ÒÓ  ÓÝ ƒ úÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWalker€thought€that€defendant€may€have€been€at€Middle€Tennessee€Mental€HealthÐ ° ÐInstitute€at€the€time€of€this€conversation. 'Ò°ÒÒ8°ÒÓ  ÓÝ ƒ úÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€treating€psychiatrist€and€psychiatric€social€worker€drew€this€conclusion.€€TheÐ ° Ðtreating€psychologist€disagreed,€finding€that€defendant€was€competent€to€stand€trial.{Z='  Ú0Ú3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ãÒ°ÒÒ8°ÒÓ  ÓÝ ƒ úÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝMultiple€wounds€alone€may€not€support€a€finding€of€premeditation.€€òòBrownóó,€863Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€at€542.€€ MÝ ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XßXXXÔÔ€èD\çXXßÔÓ  ÓÔ_Ôò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€\ÔçèD\ÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€27,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€Ô_ÔClerkÔdAxÔó óÔ_Ô ×|;'L  dZ[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''''ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÒ°ÒÔ€XßXXXÔÓ  ÓÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ8€ÃXXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÔ_Ôßv€Y_@0,j: `€€@ÿE˜±Žtt¨¦Ð° WvßÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà@˜ ˜ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° ÐÌà@=='àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌÌà@CC%àJULY€1999€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@÷÷-à)ˆÐ  ` Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òNO.€03C01„9812„CC„00439ó óÐ ü L  Ðà ` àAppellee,à@÷÷-à)ˆÐ è 8  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òJEFFERSON€COUNTYó óÐ Î  Ðò òVS.ó óà@÷÷-à)ˆÐ º  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òHON.€BEN€W.€HOOPER€II,Ð ¦ö  ÐBLANE€SCOTT€HOLDER,à@à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ó ó)€€€€€€€€€€ò òJUDGEó óˆÐ ’â  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆÌAppellant.à@÷÷-à)ˆà p à(First€Degree€Murder€„Ð d´ Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àLife€Sentence)Ð Jš ÐÌÌÌÒ(ä „¸ @(#(#(Òò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:Ð â2 ÐÌO.€DUANE€SLONEÌREBECCA€D.€SLONEÌó óP.O.€Box€1088Ð ’â ÐDandridge,€TN€€€37725Ð xÈ Ðò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð â2 ÐÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERSó óÐ º  ÐAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌò òTODD€R.€KELLEYó óÐ r ÐAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCordell€Hull€Building,€2nd€FloorÌ425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌò òALFRED€C.€SCHMUTZER,€JR.ó óÐ Ü!,% ÐDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òJAMES€L.€GASSó óÐ ”$ä( ÐAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌ149€East€Main€St.ÌP.€O.€Box€70ÌDandridge,€TN€€€37725Ð 2(‚#, ÐÒ(ä „¸ @ìì(ÒÐ þ)N%, ÐÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ b/²*2 ÐÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÐ  Â62: ÐÔ_Ôó óÌà@qq*àò òOPINIONó óˆÐ –æ ÐÌÓÓà ` àThe€defendant,€Blane€Scott€Holder,€was€convicted€at€a€bench€trial€of€firstÐ h¸ Ðdegree€premeditated€murder€and€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.€€In€this€appeal€asÐ 4 „ Ðof€right,€defendant€raises€the€following€issues:Ð  P ÐÓÓà ` àà8 ¸ à1.€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€find€him€notÐ Ì   Ðguilty€by€reason€of€insanity;в  ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà ` àà8 ¸ à2.€€whether€the€current€statute€setting€forth€theÐ ~Î  Ðaffirmative€defense€of€insanity€is€constitutional;€andÐd´ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà ` àà8 ¸ à3.€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€consider€hisÐ 0€  Ðdiminished€capacity€to€form€the€requisite€òòmens€reaóó€for€Ð f Ðpremeditated€murder.ÐþN¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓUpon€our€review€of€the€record,€we€ò ò€AFFIRMó ó€€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð Ê ÐÌ€à@ÎÎ+àò òFACTSó óˆÐ n¾ Ðà@ÇÇ%àò òA.€€Lay€Testimonyó óˆÐ F– Ðà ` àDefendant€lived€in€South€Carolina€and€desired€to€come€to€Tennessee€toÐ n Ðinvestigate€buying€some€real€estate.€€Because€defendantððs€driver's€license€had€beenÐ ê: Ðsuspended,€the€victim,€Jason€Seaborn,€agreed€to€drive€him€to€Tennessee.€€Ð ¶  ÐÌà ` àDuring€their€drive€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€May€5,€1996,€defendant€toldÐ N$ž# ÐSeaborn€that€he€was€going€to€kill€him€because€Seaborn€was€Satan€and€defendantÐ &j!% Ðwas€Jesus€Christ.€€Seaborn€pulled€into€a€fast„food€restaurant€parking€lot,€andÐ æ'6#' Ðdefendant€struck€him€with€his€fist€and€stabbed€him€in€the€chest€with€a€knife.€Ð ²)%) ÐSeaborn€entered€the€restaurant€and€defendant€followed,€holding€the€knife.€Ð ~+Î&+ ÐDefendant€threw€the€knife€at€Seaborn,€and€it€went€behind€the€customer€serviceÐ J-š(- Ðcounter.€€Defendant€walked€up€to€the€counter€and€told€Vanessa€Dunkhass,€one€ofÐ /f*/ Ðthe€employees,€"I'm€Jesus€Christ,€give€me€my€f„„„„„g€knife."€€Ð â02,1 ÐÌà ` àDunkhass€told€defendant€that€he€was€not€allowed€behind€the€counter,€andÐ z4Ê/5 Ðthey€argued.€€Defendant€kept€repeating€his€statement.€€Eventually,€he€shovedÐ F6–17 ÐDunkhass€out€of€the€way,€went€behind€the€counter,€and€retrieved€the€knife.€€He€thenÐ 8b39 Ðwent€back€to€Seaborn,€who€had€fallen€to€the€floor,€stabbed€him€in€the€chest€againÐ Þ9.5; Ðand€slashed€his€throat.€€As€he€did€so,€he€looked€up€at€Dunkhass€and€told€her€theÐ ° Ðvictim€was€Satan;€he€was€God;€and€God€had€told€him€to€do€it.€€Dunkhass€retreated,Ð |Ì Ðand€defendant€went€to€the€restroom€and€washed€his€hands.€€Seaborn's€autopsyÐ H˜ Ðrevealed€that€he€would€have€died€from€any€of€the€three€lethal€wounds.Ð  d Ðà ` àÌà ` àDeputy€Larry€Jackson€was€the€first€police€officer€on€the€scene.€€DefendantÐ ¬ ü  Ðwas€standing€by€his€truck.€€Jackson€testified€that€defendant€began€yelling€at€him€thatÐ xÈ  Ð"he€was€the€Lord€Jesus€Christ€and€that€he€had€just€smitten€Satan."€€Defendant€thenÐ D”  Ðstabbed€the€hood€of€his€truck€several€times€with€the€knife.€€Defendant€then€put€hisÐ ` Ðhands€behind€his€back,€bent€over€and€said,€"I'm€ready€to€go,€handcuff€me."€€OfficerÐ Ü, ÐJackson€declined€to€approach€defendant€and€radioed€for€assistance.€€At€that€point,Ð ¨ø Ðdefendant€retrieved€his€knife€and€started€to€approach€Jackson€in€a€threateningÐ tÄ Ðmanner.€€€Defendant€told€Jackson€that€he€killed€the€victim€because€the€victim€hadÐ @ Ðkilled€defendantððs€wife.€€Defendant€was€not€married€at€the€time.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà ` àWhen€other€officers€arrived,€defendant€began€to€retreat.€€He€continued€toÐ ¤ô Ðwave€the€knife€and€threatened€to€throw€it.€€He€started€down€an€embankment,€threwÐ p!À  Ðthe€knife€down,€and€several€officers€followed€him€down€the€embankment.€€A€fightÐ <#Œ" Ðensued€between€defendant€and€several€officers.€€At€some€point,€defendant€becameÐ %X $ Ðunresponsive€and€the€officers€tried€unsuccessfully€to€haul€him€back€up€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðembankment€with€a€rope.€€Eventually,€several€officers€managed€to€get€defendantÐ  (ð#( Ðinto€a€cruiser,€at€which€point€he€began€trying€to€kick€out€the€windows.€€When€he€wasÐ l*¼%* Ðsprayed€with€pepper€spray,€he€only€"laughed€and€licked€his€lips."Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÌà ` àSheriff€Doug€Quarles€was€also€at€the€murder€scene€and€rememberedÐ Ð/ +0 Ðdefendant€stating€that€he€was€Jesus€Christ€and€the€victim€was€Satan.€€AfterÐ œ1ì,2 Ðdefendant€was€in€jail,€he€told€Sheriff€Quarles€that€Satan€had€sent€Quarles€to€kill€himÐ h3¸.4 Ð(defendant).€€Quarles€testified€that€defendant€was€"deranged"€the€night€they€pickedÐ 45„06 Ðhim€up,€and€that€he€had€paced€his€cell€like€an€animal€and€refused€to€eat€for€a€longÐ 7P28 Ðtime.€€Ð Ì84: Їà ` àSeveral€hours€after€defendant€was€jailed,€TBI€agent€Steve€Richardson€Ð ° Ðinterviewed€defendant€and€obtained€a€statement.€€In€the€statement,€defendantÐ |Ì Ðacknowledged€hiring€Seaborn€to€drive€him€because€of€his€suspended€license.€€HeÐ H˜ Ðalso€recalled€the€victim€getting€a€speeding€ticket€while€they€were€in€North€Carolina.€Ð  d ÐDefendant€stated€that€he€and€the€victim€had€been€smoking€marijuana,€and€he€wasÐ à 0 Ðtaking€"little€yellow€pills"€for€his€"condition."€€After€they€arrived€in€Tennessee,Ð ¬ ü  Ðdefendant€felt€something€touch€him€in€his€side.€€This€happened€several€times.€€HeÐ xÈ  Ðtold€Seaborn€that€he€thought€he€was€Jesus€Christ,€and€€Seaborn€responded€that€heÐ D”  Ðwas€Satan.€€He€told€Seaborn€that€God€told€him€to€kill€him,€and€that€he€was€going€toÐ ` Ðkill€him.€€Defendant€had€his€knife€in€his€hand€during€this€conversation.€€Ð Ü, ÐÌà ` àAccording€to€defendant's€statement,€Seaborn€pled€for€his€life.€€He€pulled€intoÐ tÄ Ðthe€restaurant€parking€lot€and€tried€to€take€the€knife€away€from€defendant.€Ð @ ÐDefendant€hit€and€then€stabbed€Seaborn.€€The€encounter€in€the€restaurant€followed.€Ð  \ ÐDefendant€stated€that€he€had€wanted€Seaborn€to€die.€€He€further€stated€that€he€hadÐ Ø( Ðlied€to€the€officers€and€told€them€that€Seaborn€had€killed€his€girlfriend.€€He€statedÐ ¤ô Ðthat€he€wanted€the€officers€to€shoot€him,€that€he€"cussed€them€for€a€while€and€thenÐ p!À  Ðtold€them€that€I€was€Jesus€Christ."€€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà ` àDefendant's€statement€also€contains€the€following:Ð Ô&$"& ÐÓÓà ` àà8 ¸ àI€know€that€killing€Jason€was€wrong.€€I€knew€that€whenÐ  (ð#( ÐI€killed€him€that€I€could€go€to€jail€for€a€long€time.€€I€knowÐ †)Ö$) Ðthat€I€did€wrong.€€I€know€that€I€should€not€have€killedÐ l*¼%* Ðhim.€€I€have€a€good€mom€that€taught€me€right€fromÐ R+¢&+ Ðwrong.Ð8,ˆ',¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓHe€further€explained€his€actions€in€stabbing€his€truck€as€being€"raging€mad"€andÐ .T). Ðunable€to€control€himself.Ð Ð/ +0 ÐÌà ` àRichardson€wrote€the€statement€as€defendant€made€it.€€After€they€wereÐ h3¸.4 Ðfinished,€Richardson€offered€it€to€defendant€for€review€and€his€signature.€€Officer€BillÐ 45„06 ÐWithers€was€also€present€at€this€time,€and€defendant€told€Withers€that€he€"thoughtÐ 7P28 Ðhe€had€killed€the€Devil€but€the€Devil€was€probably€in€the€room€right€now."€€DefendantÐ Ì84: Ðthen€refused€to€sign€the€statement€and€asked€for€an€attorney.Ð ° ÐÌà ` àA€search€of€the€truck€in€which€defendant€and€Seaborn€had€traveled€revealedÐ H˜ Ðsome€marijuana.€€Tests€performed€on€defendant's€blood€were€negative€on€alcoholÐ  d Ðand€basic€drugs;€the€test€sample€was€unsuitable€for€detecting€the€presence€ofÐ à 0 Ðmarijuana.€€€€€€€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌà ` àOn€May€7,€1996,€Public€Defender€Edward€Miller€met€with€defendant€to€assistÐ D”  Ðhim€in€preparing€an€indigency€affidavit.€€At€one€point€during€this€meeting,€defendantÐ ` Ðreferred€to€Miller€as€ð ðLucifer.ðð€€Miller€wrote€in€defendant's€name€on€the€form,€andÐ Ü, Ðdefendant€crossed€his€name€out€and€filled€in€"Jesus€Christ."€€Defendant€€initiallyÐ ¨ø Ðsigned€the€affidavit€"B.€Scott€Holder"€and€then€crossed€out€his€signature€and€filledÐ tÄ Ðin€"Jesus€Christ."€€Ð @ ÐÌà ` àMerlin€Foister€was€one€of€defendant's€jailers.€€Foister€testified€that,€during€Ð Ø( Ðthe€afternoon€of€defendant's€first€day€in€jail,€defendant€told€him€that€he€was€JesusÐ ¤ô Ðand€God€was€mad€at€him€for€not€"get[ting]€[the€victim's]€head€off."€€Foister€alsoÐ p!À  Ðtestified€that€defendant€refused€to€eat,€and€at€one€time€complained€of€demonsÐ <#Œ" Ðcoming€out€of€the€floor€drain€trying€to€get€him.€€When€defendantððs€mother€visited€himÐ %X $ Ðduring€the€first€several€weeks€of€his€stay,€defendant€would€scream€at€her€that€heÐ Ô&$"& Ðwas€Jesus.€€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌà ` àStacy€Walker€testified€that€he€had€known€defendant€twelve€to€fifteen€years.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐAbout€six€months€before€the€murder,€Walker€observed€defendant€beginning€toÐ .T). Ðdevelop€uncontrollable€rages.€€Three€days€before€the€crime€at€issue,€Walker€andÐ Ð/ +0 Ðdefendant's€mother€had€taken€him€to€an€emergency€room€for€a€mental€evaluationÐ œ1ì,2 Ðbecause€defendant€had€been€acting€strangely.€€Defendant€was€released,€accordingÐ h3¸.4 Ðto€Walker,€because€they€found€nothing€wrong.€€Ð 45„06 ÐÌà ` àAfter€the€murder,€Walker€spoke€with€defendant€€over€the€telephone€about€theÐ Ì84: Ðcrime.€€According€to€Walker,€defendant€expressed€no€remorse.€€The€onlyÐ ° Ðexplanation€he€heard€defendant€give€was€that€he€had€smoked€a€marijuana€cigaretteÐ |Ì Ðthat€had€been€laced€with€something.€Defendant€never€mentioned€anything€aboutÐ H˜ ÐJesus€Christ€or€Satan€to€him.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  d ÐÌà ` àMelvin€Douglas€Bennefield,€Jr.,€a€longtime€friend€of€the€defendant,€testifiedÐ ¬ ü  Ðthat€he€had€originally€planned€to€drive€defendant€to€Tennessee,€then€changed€hisÐ xÈ  Ðmind€after€defendant€slapped€his€hat€off€his€head.€€He€advised€the€victim€not€to€takeÐ D”  Ðdefendant€because€he€"thought€he€was€crazy."€€€Bennefield€also€testified€that€aÐ ` Ð"good€while"€before€the€murder€in€this€case,€defendant€had€remarked€about€whatÐ Ü, Ðit€would€feel€like€to€kill€someone.€€Bennefield€testified€that€defendant€had€repeatedÐ ¨ø Ðthis€query€about€two€weeks€before€killing€the€victim.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà ` àAndrew€Thomas€Fletcher,€defendant's€friend€of€fifteen€years,€testified€that€heÐ  \ Ðhad€talked€with€defendant€five€or€six€times€after€the€murder.€€DefendantÐ Ø( Ðacknowledged€killing€the€victim€but€never€expressed€any€remorse.€€Defendant€toldÐ ¤ô Ðhim€a€month€before€the€trial€that€after€he€was€released,€he€was€going€to€killÐ p!À  Ðsomeone€for€keeping€some€of€his€mother's€money.€€According€to€Fletcher,Ð <#Œ" Ðdefendant€thought€he€would€be€released€"before€Christmas."€Ð %X $ ÐÌà@òò"àò òB.€€Mental€Evaluationsó óˆÐ  (ð#( Ðà ` àDefendant€was€admitted€to€Middle€Tennessee€Mental€Health€Institute€onÐ x*È%* ÐJune€24,€1996,€for€a€thirty„day€evaluation.€€He€was€diagnosed€as€not€competent€toÐ D,”', Ðstand€trial,׃h×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€as€meeting€the€criteria€for€an€insanity€defense.€€He€was€furtherÐ .`). Ðjudged€committable€to€a€mental€health€institution.€€He€was€prescribed€medicationÐ Ü/,+0 Ðand€returned€to€jail.€€Ð ¨1ø,2 ÐÐ t3Ä.4 Ðà ` àIn€October€1996,€defendant€was€judicially€committed€to€Middle€TennesseeÐ ° ÐMental€Health€Institute.€€He€was€transferred€to€Lakeshore€Mental€Health€Institute€inÐ |Ì ÐAugust€1997€for€another€evaluation€of€his€competency€to€stand€trial.€€In€SeptemberÐ H˜ Ð1997,€defendant€was€pronounced€competent€to€stand€trial,€but€still€committable.€€InÐ  d ÐFebruary€1998,€defendant€was€pronounced€still€competent€to€stand€trial,€but€noÐ à 0 Ðlonger€committable.€€Accordingly,€defendant€was€discharged€to€jail€with€continuingÐ ¬ ü  Ðoutpatient€treatment.€€The€defendant€was€tried€in€July€1998.€€Ð xÈ  ÐÌà@ªª!àò òC.€€Expert€Testimonyó ó€€€€€ˆÐ ` Ðà ` àThe€trial€court€also€heard€testimony€from€two€expert€witnesses.€€Dr.€SamuelÐ è8 ÐCraddock€testified€as€an€expert€witness€in€forensic€psychology.€€Dr.€Craddock€wasÐ ´ Ðpart€of€the€forensic€team€that€evaluated€defendant€at€the€Middle€Tennessee€MentalÐ €Ð ÐHealth€Institute€in€June€and€July€1996.€€According€to€Dr.€Craddock,€the€teamÐ Lœ Ðdiagnosed€defendant€with€paranoid€schizophrenia,€a€severe€mental€disorder.€€TheÐ h Ðteam€further€concluded€that€on€the€night€of€the€victim's€murder,€defendant€"was€outÐ ä4 Ðof€touch€with€reality€at€that€time€and€was€making€comments€and€showing€symptomsÐ ° Ðof€paranoid€schizophrenia."€€His€violent€actions€were€the€result€of€hallucinations€andÐ |!Ì  Ðdelusions,€causing€him€to€perceive€the€victim€as€a€threat€against€whom€he€neededÐ H#˜" Ðto€protect€himself.€€According€to€Dr.€Craddock,€defendant€had€not€perceived€hisÐ %d $ Ðactions€in€killing€the€victim€as€being€wrong,€but€as€being€in€self„defense.€€WhenÐ à&0"& Ðquestioned€about€defendant's€statement€to€Agent€Richardson€in€which€defendantÐ ¬(ü#( Ðacknowledged€that€killing€the€victim€was€wrong,€Dr.€Craddock€testified€that,€whileÐ x*È%* Ðdefendant€may€have€realized€that€killing€someone€was€wrong,€defendant€"wasÐ D,”', Ðinternally€coerced€[by€the€voices€and€the€delusional€beliefs]€€to€do€something€thatÐ .`). Ðhe€knew€.€.€.€was€wrong."€€Dr.€Craddock€also€testified€that€the€team€did€not€think€thatÐ Ü/,+0 Ðdefendant's€actions€in€killing€the€victim€were€the€result€of€his€ingesting€drugs€orÐ ¨1ø,2 Ðalcohol.€€Ð t3Ä.4 ÐÌà ` àDr.€Kathleen€Broughan€also€testified€as€an€expert€in€the€field€of€forensicÐ  7\28 Ðpsychology.€€Dr.€Broughan€met€with€and€evaluated€defendant€in€the€latter€part€ofÐ Ø8(4: ÐMay€1996€at€the€Jefferson€County€jail.€€Dr.€Broughan€agreed€with€the€MiddleÐ ° ÐTennessee€Mental€Health€Institute's€diagnosis€of€paranoid€schizophrenia.€Ð |Ì ÐAccording€to€Dr.€Broughan,€"[e]ven€though€[defendant]€understood€or€felt€that€killingÐ H˜ Ðwas€wrong,€he€felt€that€this€was€something€that€he€had€to€obey€because€it€was€GodÐ  d Ðthat€was€telling€him€to€do€this."€€At€the€time€of€the€crime,€defendant€"was€living€in€[a]Ð à 0 Ðdifferent€reality"€and€"was€not€able€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€[of€his€conductÐ ¬ ü  Ðin€killing€the€victim],€that€he€was€in€fact€behaving€in€accordance€with€his€delusionalÐ xÈ  Ðsystem."€€She€further€testified€that,€as€a€result€of€his€delusions,€defendant€had€feltÐ D”  Ðhe€had€"no€choice"€in€killing€the€victim€after€receiving€what€he€believed€to€be€aÐ ` Ðmandate€from€God.€€€Ð Ü, ÐÌà@qqàò òD.€€Trial€Courtððs€Determinationó óˆÐ tÄ Ðà ` àThis€case€was€tried€by€the€trial€judge€without€a€jury.€€In€rejecting€the€insanityÐ Lœ Ðdefense,€the€trial€judge€first€found€that€defendant€had€established€by€clear€andÐ h Ðconvincing€evidence€that€he€had€a€ð ðsevere€mental€disease€or€defectðð€at€the€time€heÐ ä4 Ðkilled€the€victim.€€The€court€further€found,€however,€that€defendant€"did€understandÐ ° Ðwhat€he€was€doing,€regardless€of€him€saying€that€he€was€Jesus€and€he€was€killingÐ |!Ì  ÐSatan."€€The€court€relied€heavily€on€defendant's€statement€to€Agent€Richardson€inÐ H#˜" Ðdrawing€this€conclusion.€€In€that€statement€the€defendant€acknowledged€that€heÐ %d $ Ðknew€the€killing€ð ðwas€wrong;ðð€he€could€ð ðgo€to€jail€for€a€long€time;ðð€and€he€knew€ð ð[he]Ð à&0"& Ðshould€not€have€killed€him.ðð€€However,€the€trial€judge€also€referred€to€defendant'sÐ ¬(ü#( Ðrefusal€to€drive€on€his€suspended€license€(as€indicative€of€his€appreciation€for€theÐ x*È%* Ðdifference€between€lawful€and€unlawful);€his€refusal€to€sign€his€statement€followedÐ D,”', Ðby€a€request€for€an€attorney€(as€indicative€that€he€knew€he€was€in€trouble);€hisÐ .`). Ðstatement€to€Officer€Jackson€that€he€had€killed€the€victim€because€the€victim€hadÐ Ü/,+0 Ðkilled€his€wife€(as€€indicative€of€knowing€it€was€wrong€to€kill€the€victim€and€attemptingÐ ¨1ø,2 Ðto€offer€some€justification);€his€later€explanation€that€he€had€smoked€marijuana€thatÐ t3Ä.4 Ðhad€been€laced€with€something€(as€indicative€that€he€had€done€wrong€and€wasÐ @506 Ðattempting€to€formulate€an€excuse);€and€defendant's€failure€to€mention€to€his€friendsÐ  7\28 Ðhis€belief€that€he€was€Jesus.€€Ð Ø8(4: ЇÌÌà@ää#àò òI.€€INSANITY€DEFENSEó óˆÐ H˜ Ðà@õ õ àò òA.€€Comparison€of€Prior€and€Current€Statuteó óˆÐ  p Ðà ` àThe€defense€of€insanity€became€an€affirmative€defense€effective€July€1,Ð ø H Ð1995.€€The€statute€now€provides:Ð Ä   ÐÓÓà ` àà8 ¸ àIt€is€an€òòaffirmative€defenseóó€to€prosecution€that,€at€theÐ à  Ðtime€of€the€commission€of€the€acts€constituting€theÐ xÈ  Ðoffense,€the€defendant,€as€a€result€of€a€òòsevereóó€mentalÐ ^®  Ðdisease€or€defect,€was€unable€to€appreciate€the€natureÐ F–  Ðor€wrongfulness€of€such€defendant's€acts.€€MentalÐ ,| Ðdisease€or€defect€does€not€otherwise€constitute€aÐ b Ðdefense.€€òòThe€defendant€has€the€burden€of€proving€theÐ øH Ðdefense€of€insanity€by€clear€and€convincing€evidenceóó.€Ð à0 ÐÐ ¸ x¸ x Ѐ€Ð ®þ ÐÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501(a)(1997)(emphasis€added).€€Defendant€contends€thatÐ ”ä Ðhe€met€his€burden€of€proof,€and€the€trial€court€erred€in€concluding€otherwise.€€UponÐ `° Ðour€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€theÐ ,| Ðdetermination€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð øH ÐÌà ` àThe€current€version€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501€(1997)€is€fundamentallyÐ !à  Ðdifferent€than€the€prior€version.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501(1991).€€The€priorÐ \#¬" Ðversion€provided€that€insanity€was€simply€a€ð ðdefenseðð€and€not€an€ð ðaffirmativeÐ ,%| $ Ðdefenseðð€as€provided€in€the€current€version.€€òòIdóó.€€Furthermore,€the€prior€versionÐ ø&H"& Ðallowed€this€defense€ð ðif,€at€the€time€of€such€conduct,€as€a€result€of€mental€diseaseÐ È($( Ðor€defect,€the€person€lacked€substantial€capacity€either€to€appreciate€theÐ ”*ä%* Ðwrongfulness€of€the€personððs€conduct€or€to€conform€that€conduct€to€theÐ `,°', Ðrequirements€of€law.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€The€current€version€provides€that€this€ð ðaffirmativeÐ ,.|). Ðdefenseðð€applies€when€ð ðthe€defendant,€as€a€result€of€a€òòsevereóó€mental€disease€orÐ ü/L+0 Ðdefect,€was€òòunable€to€appreciate€the€nature€or€wrongfulness€of€such€defendantððsÐ Ì1-2 Ðacts.€€Mental€disease€or€defect€does€not€otherwise€constitute€a€defenseóó.ðð€€Tenn.Ð œ3ì.4 ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501(a)(1997)(emphasis€added).€€Furthermore,€and€mostÐ l5¼06 Ðsignificantly,€the€new€statute€provides€that€the€burden€of€proof€is€upon€the€defendantÐ 87ˆ28 Ðto€establish€insanity€by€ð ðclear€and€convincing€evidence.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Ð 9T4: Їà ` àUnder€the€prior€statute,€if€the€evidence€adduced€raised€a€reasonable€doubtÐ ° Ðas€to€the€defendantððs€sanity,€the€burden€of€proof€then€fell€upon€the€state€to€establishÐ |Ì Ðsanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€890€S.W.2d€436,€440€(Tenn.Ð H˜ Ð1994).€€In€order€for€the€state€to€meet€its€burden€of€proving€sanity,€it€could€provideÐ  d Ðany€€ð ðevidence€which€is€consistent€with€sanity€and€inconsistent€with€insanity.ðð€€òòStateÐ à 0 Ðv.€Sparksóó,€891€S.W.2d€607,€616€(Tenn.€1995)(quoting€òòEdwards€v.€Stateóó,€540Ð ¬ ü  ÐS.W.2d€641,€646€(Tenn.€1976),€òòcert.€deniedóó€429€U.S.€1061,€97€S.Ct.€784,€50Ð xÈ  ÐL.Ed.2d€777€(1977)).€€Ð H˜  ÐÌà@KK"àò òB.€€Legislative€Intentó óˆÐ à0 Ðà ` àThe€1995€amendment€was€an€obvious€expression€of€legislative€intent€toÐ ¸ Ðrestrict€the€defense€of€insanity.€€The€mental€disease€or€defect€must€now€be€soÐ „Ô Ðð ðsevereðð€as€to€make€the€defendant€ð ðunable€to€appreciate€the€nature€or€wrongfulnessÐ P  Ðof€[his/her]€acts.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501(a)(1997).€€Furthermore,€the€burdenÐ l Ðis€now€on€the€òòdefendantóó€to€establish€insanity€by€ð ðclear€and€convincing€evidence.ðð€Ð è8 ÐòòIdóó.€€ð ðClear€and€convincing€evidence€means€evidence€in€which€there€is€no€serious€orÐ ´ Ðsubstantial€doubt€about€the€correctness€of€the€conclusions€drawn€from€theÐ „!Ô  Ðevidence.ðð€€òòHodges€v.€S.€C.€Toof€&€Co.óó,€833€S.W.2d€896,€901€fn.€2€(Tenn.€1992);Ð P# " Ðòòsee€alsoóó€T.P.I.€„€CRIM.€40.16(b)(4th€ed.€1995).€€This€is€a€much€different€and€higherÐ %l $ Ðstandard€of€proof€placed€on€a€defendant.€€€Ð ì&<"& ÐÌà@êê"àò òC.€€Federal€LegislationˆÐ „*Ô%* Ðó óà ` àThe€language€of€the€current€version€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501€(1997)Ð \,¬', Ðis€patterned€after€and€virtually€identical€to€the€federal€Insanity€Defense€Reform€ActÐ (.x). Ðof€1984,€which€provides€as€follows:Ð ô/D+0 ÐÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àà  à(a)€Affirmative€defense.„„„It€is€an€affirmativeÐ À1-2 Ðdefense€to€the€prosecution€under€any€Federal€statuteÐ ¦2ö-3 Ðthat,€at€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€actsÐ Œ3Ü.4 Ðconstituting€the€offense,€the€defendant,€as€a€result€of€aÐ r4Â/5 Ðsevere€mental€disease€or€defect,€was€unable€toÐ X5¨06 Ðappreciate€the€nature€and€quality€or€the€wrongfulness€ofÐ >6Ž17 Ðhis€acts.€€Mental€disease€or€defect€does€not€otherwiseÐ $7t28 Ðconstitute€a€defense.Ð 8Z39¸ x¸ x Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àà  à(b)€Burden€of€proof.„„„The€defendant€has€theÐ ð8@4: Ðburden€of€proving€the€defense€of€insanity€by€clear€andÐ Ö9&5; Ðconvincing€proof.€€Ð°¸ x¸ x ÐÓÓÌÌ18€U.S.C.€ðð€17.€€òòSee€alsoóó€Raybin,€òòTennessee€Criminal€Practice€and€Procedureóó,€ððÐ . ~ Ð28.40€(Supp.€1997).€€Ð þ N ÐÌà ` àPrior€to€the€passage€of€this€federal€legislation,€a€defendant€under€federal€lawÐ –æ  Ðwas€presumed€to€be€sane€until€the€introduction€of€evidence€of€insanity,€at€whichÐ b²  Ðpoint€the€burden€shifted€to€the€government€to€prove€sanity€beyond€a€reasonableÐ .~  Ðdoubt.€€òòDavis€v.€United€Statesóó,€160€U.S.€469,€16€S.Ct.€353,€40€L.Ed.€499€(1895);Ð úJ ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Voiceóó,€627€F.2d€138,€148€(8th€Cir.€1980).€€As€previously€noted,€theÐ Æ Ðsame€was€true€in€Tennessee.€€òòJacksonóó,€890€S.W.2d€at€440.€€Under€this€federalÐ ’â Ðlegislation,€the€burden€is€now€clearly€on€the€federal€defendant€to€prove€insanity€byÐ ^® Ðclear€and€convincing€evidence,€and€not€on€the€government€to€prove€sanity.€€òòSeeÐ *z Ðgenerally€óóòòUnited€States€v.€Stillóó,€857€F.2d€671,€672€(9th€Cir.€1988);€òòUnited€States€v.Ð úJ ÐAmosóó,€803€F.2d€419,€421„22€(8th€Cir.€1986).€€Although€the€government€is€requiredÐ Ê Ðto€prove€all€essential€elements€of€a€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€sanity€is€notÐ – æ Ðan€element€of€a€crime.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòPatterson€v.€New€Yorkóó,€432€U.S.€197,€204„16,Ð b"²! Ð97€S.Ct.€2319,€53€L.Ed.2d€281€(1977).€€Thus,€it€is€appropriate€to€place€the€burdenÐ 2$‚# Ðof€proof€on€a€defendant€to€establish€insanity€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòSeeóóÐ þ%N!% ÐòòAmosóó,€803€F.2d€at€421.€€Ð Î'#' ÐÌà ` àWe€conclude,€as€have€the€federal€courts,€that€our€current€insanity€statuteÐ f+¶&+ Ðplaces€the€burden€on€the€defendant€to€establish€insanity€by€clear€and€convincingÐ 2-‚(- Ðevidence,€and€not€on€the€state€to€prove€sanity.€€Ð þ.N*/ ÐÌà@ÚÚ"àò òD.€€Standard€of€Reviewó óˆÐ –2æ-3 Ðà ` àIn€a€bench€trial,€the€verdict€of€the€trial€judge€is€entitled€to€the€same€weight€onÐ n4¾/5 Ðappeal€as€a€jury€verdict.€€òòState€v.€Hatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€1978).€€A€Ð :6Š17 ÐÌÐ Ò9"5; ЇÌfinding€of€guilt€by€the€trial€court€shall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€toÐ |Ì Ðsupport€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.Ð H˜ ÐApp.€P.€13(e).€€Ð  d ÐÌà ` àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€ourÐ ¬ ü  Ðstandard€of€review€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorableÐ xÈ  Ðto€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elementsÐ D”  Ðof€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,Ð ` Ð99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibilityÐ Ü, Ðof€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€factualÐ ¨ø Ðissues€raised€by€the€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòStateÐ tÄ Ðv.€Tuttleóó,€914€S.W.2d€926,€932€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Nor€may€this€CourtÐ @ Ðreweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ð  \ Ð(Tenn.€1978).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÐ Ø( Ðevidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòId.óó€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€theÐ ¤ô Ðpresumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accusedÐ t!Ä  Ðhas€the€burden€in€this€Court€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€supportÐ @#" Ðthe€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914Ð  %\ $ Ð(Tenn.€1982).€€Ð Ø&("& ÐÌà ` àIn€determining€the€issue€of€insanity,€the€trier€of€fact€may€consider€both€layÐ p*À%* Ðand€expert€testimony€and€may€discount€expert€testimony€which€it€finds€to€be€inÐ <,Œ', Ðconflict€with€the€facts€of€the€case.€€òòSparksóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€616;€òòJacksonóó,€890Ð .X). ÐS.W.2d€at€440.€€Where€there€is€a€conflict€between€expert€testimony€and€testimonyÐ Ô/$+0 Ðas€to€the€facts,€the€trier€of€fact€is€not€required€to€accept€expert€testimony€over€otherÐ  1ð,2 Ðtestimony€and€must€determine€the€weight€and€credibility€of€each€in€light€of€all€theÐ l3¼.4 Ðfacts€and€circumstances€of€the€case.€€òòEdwardsóó,€540€S.W.2d€at€647.€€In€determiningÐ 85ˆ06 Ðthe€defendantððs€mental€status€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€crime,€the€trier€of€fact€mayÐ 7T28 Ðlook€to€the€evidence€of€his€actions€and€words€before,€at,€and€immediately€after€the€Ð Ð8 4: Їcommission€of€the€offense.€€òòSparksóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€616;€òòHumphreys€v.€Stateóó,€531Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€127,€132€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€€Ð |Ì ÐÌà@YY àò òE.€€Trial€Judgeððs€Findingsó óˆÐ  d Ðà ` àThe€trial€judge€expressly€found€that€the€defendant€had€failed€to€meet€hisÐ ì < Ðburden€of€proof€as€to€insanity.€€Thus,€although€the€trial€judge€found€that€theÐ ¸   Ðdefendant€had€established€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€he€had€a€ð ðsevereÐ „Ô  Ðmental€disease€or€defectðð€at€the€time€of€the€murder,€he€found€that€the€defendant€hadÐ P   Ðnot€established€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€he€was€unable€to€appreciateÐ l Ðthe€nature€or€wrongfulness€of€his€acts.€€Ð è8 ÐÌà@#àò òF.€€Our€Determinationó óˆÐ €Ð Ðà ` àThe€defendant€was€required€to€establish€insanity€by€clear€and€convincingÐ X¨ Ðevidence,€which€is€evidence€that€there€is€no€serious€or€substantial€doubt€about€theÐ $t Ðcorrectness€of€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòHodgesóó,€833Ð ð@ ÐS.W.2d€at€901.€€The€trial€judge€expressly€concluded€that€the€defendant€failed€toÐ ¼  Ðestablish€insanity€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Specifically,€the€trial€judgeÐ ˆ!Ø  Ðconcluded€that€the€defendant€failed€to€establish€that€he€was€unable€to€appreciateÐ T#¤" Ðthe€nature€or€wrongfulness€of€his€acts.€€He€relied€primarily€upon€the€actions€andÐ  %p $ Ðwords€of€the€defendant€before,€at€and€after€the€commission€of€the€offense,€whichÐ ì&<"& Ðhe€had€a€right€to€do.€€òòSparksóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€616;€òòHumphreysóó,€531€S.W.2d€at€132.€Ð ¸($( ÐViewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€we€conclude€that€aÐ „*Ô%* Ðrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€made€such€a€finding.€€Ð P, ', ÐÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€its€determination€that€the€defendant€Ð è/8+0 Ðdid€not€prove€the€insanity€defense€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€This€issue€isÐ ´1-2 Ðwithout€merit.€€Ð €3Ð.4 ÐÌÌÐ ä844: Ðà@  àò òII.€€CONSTITUTIONALITY€OF€TENN.€CODE€ANN.€ðð€39„11„501ó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà ` àDefendant€next€contends€that€Tennesseeððs€current€insanity€defense€statuteÐ T¤ Ðis€unconstitutional.€€As€set€forth€above,€the€current€statute€provides€a€defense€onÐ  p Ðthe€basis€of€insanity€where€the€defendant€proves€that,€ð ðas€a€result€of€a€severeÐ ì < Ðmental€disease€or€defect,€[he]€was€unable€to€appreciate€the€nature€or€wrongfulnessÐ ¸   Ðof€[his]€acts.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501(a)€(1997).€€The€prior€statute€allowedÐ „Ô  Ða€defense€of€insanity€where,€ð ðas€a€result€of€mental€disease€or€defect,€theÐ P   Ð[defendant]€lacked€substantial€capacity€either€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€[his]Ð l Ðconduct€òòor€to€conform€that€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€lawóó.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ð è8 Ððð39„11„501(a)€(1991)€(emphasis€added);€òòsee€also€óóòòGraham€v.€Stateóó,€547€S.W.2dÐ ¸ Ð531,€543€(Tenn.€1977)€(adopting€the€Model€Penal€Code€insanity€defense€whichÐ ˆØ Ðincluded€lacking€ð ðsubstantial€capacity€...€to€conform€his€conduct€to€the€requirementsÐ T¤ Ðof€the€lawðð).€€Defendant€objects€to€the€deletion€of€this€latter€language€as€a€denial€ofÐ  p Ðdue€process.€€Ð ì< ÐÌà ` àWe€are€not€persuaded.€€As€previously€stated,€Tennesseeððs€current€statuteÐ „!Ô  Ðis€patterned€closely€after€the€federal€insanity€defense€statute.€€òòSeeóó€18€U.S.€C.€ðð€17.€Ð P# " ÐPrior€to€the€enactment€of€this€statute,€a€defendant€in€federal€court€could€succeed€onÐ  %p $ Ðthe€defense€of€insanity€if,€as€a€result€of€mental€disease€or€defect,€he€lackedÐ ì&<"& Ðsubstantial€capacity€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€òòor€to€conform€hisÐ ¸($( Ðconduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€lawóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Weeksóó,€716€F.2d€830,Ð ˆ*Ø%* Ð831„32€(11th€Cir.€1983)€(emphasis€added).€€The€deletion€of€this€latter€language€hasÐ X,¨', Ðbeen€found€constitutional.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Freemanóó,€804€F.2d€1574,€1576Ð $.t). Ð(11th€Cir.€1986).€€We€agree€with€our€federal€counterpart.€€This€issue€is,€therefore,Ð ô/D+0 Ðwithout€merit.€€Ð À1-2 ÐÌÌÌÐ ð8@4: Ðà@  àò òIII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€EVIDENCE€OF€PREMEDITATIONó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà ` àFinally,€defendant€contends€that€he€adduced€sufficient€proof€of€his€diminishedÐ T¤ Ðmental€capacity€so€as€to€negate€the€òòmens€reaóó€requirement€of€premeditationÐ  p Ðnecessary€to€support€his€conviction€for€first€degree€murder.€€Again,€we€disagree.€€Ð ð @ ÐÌà ` àAt€the€time€defendant€killed€Seaborn,€first€degree€premeditated€murder€wasÐ ˆØ  Ðdefined€as€a€ð ðpremeditated€and€intentional€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ T¤  Ð39„13„202(a)€(1)€(1997).€€A€premeditated€killing€is€one€ð ðdone€after€the€exercise€ofÐ  p Ðreflection€and€judgment,ðð€and€where€the€intent€to€kill€was€formed€prior€to€the€actÐ ì< Ðitself.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„202(d)€(1997).€€The€statute€further€provides€thatÐ ¸ Ðð ð[t]he€mental€state€of€the€accused€at€the€time€the€accused€allegedly€decided€to€killÐ „Ô Ðmust€be€carefully€considered€in€order€to€determine€whether€the€accused€wasÐ P  Ðsufficiently€free€from€excitement€and€passion€as€to€be€capable€of€premeditation.ðð€Ð l ÐòòIdóó.€€Ð è8 ÐÌà@¨¨"àò òA.€€Diminished€Capacityó óˆÐ „!Ô  Ðà ` àA€defendant€may€not€be€convicted€of€first€degree€premeditated€murder€if,€asÐ \#¬" Ðthe€result€of€a€mental€disease€or€defect,€he€or€she€lacked€the€capacity€to€formÐ (%x $ Ðpremeditation.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679,€690€(Tenn.€1997).€€InÐ ô&D"& Ðthis€case,€however,€€the€defendant€did€not€put€on€evidence€to€this€effect.€€WhileÐ Ä($( Ðthere€was€significant€expert€testimony€that€defendant€was€suffering€from€paranoidÐ *à%* Ðschizophrenia€at€the€time€he€killed€the€victim,€and€that€this€mental€disease€affectedÐ \,¬', Ðhis€ability€to€perceive€reality,€this€does€not€necessarily€imply€that€the€defendantÐ (.x). Ðlacked€the€capacity€to€premeditate.€€This€Court€may€not€assume€that€a€defendantÐ ô/D+0 Ðsuffering€from€paranoid€schizophrenia€accompanied€by€delusions€is€necessarilyÐ À1-2 Ðincapable€of€premeditated€murder.€€Moreover,€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€defendantÐ Œ3Ü.4 Ðdid€understand€the€wrongfulness€of€his€acts€implies€that€defendant€engaged€inÐ X5¨06 Ðsome€form€of€judgment€and€reflection€prior€to€killing€Seaborn€„„€especially€in€light€ofÐ $7t28 Ðthe€time€and€effort€defendant€used€in€completing€his€crime.€€Looking€at€the€evidenceÐ ð8@4: Ðin€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€determinedÐ ° Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€defendant€was€capable€of€premeditation.€€ThisÐ |Ì Ðargument€is€without€merit.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà@àà%àò òB.€€PremeditationˆÐ à 0 Ðó óà ` àHowever,€we€must€still€determine€whether€the€state€put€on€sufficient€proof€toÐ ¸   Ðestablish€that€defendant€did,€in€fact,€kill€Seaborn€intentionally€and€withÐ „Ô  Ðpremeditation.€€We€hold€that€it€did.€€Defendantððs€statement€reveals€that€he€toldÐ P   ÐSeaborn€that€he€was€going€to€kill€him€prior€to€actually€stabbing€him,€and€preparedÐ l Ðhimself€to€do€so€by€procuring€his€knife.€€Seaborn€pled€for€his€life,€and€defendant€hitÐ è8 Ðhim€with€his€fist€twice.€€Seaborn€got€out€of€the€truck,€and€defendant€stabbed€himÐ ´ Ðonce.€€Seaborn€then€fled€into€the€restaurant€and€defendant€followed.€€Once€inside,Ð €Ð Ðdefendant€threw€his€knife€at€the€victim,€and€then€argued€with€an€employee€in€orderÐ Lœ Ðto€retrieve€it.€€After€he€shoved€an€employee€out€of€the€way€and€retrieved€his€knife,Ð h Ðdefendant€found€his€prostrate€victim,€stabbed€him€again€and€then€slashed€his€throat.€Ð ä4 ÐHe€then€went€to€the€restroom€and€washed€his€hands.€€Ð ° ÐÌà ` àWhether€a€defendant€has€acted€with€premeditation€is€a€question€for€the€finderÐ H#˜" Ðof€fact€to€determine,€and€it€may€be€inferred€from€the€manner€and€circumstances€ofÐ %d $ Ðthe€killing.€€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€followingÐ à&0"& Ðfactors€may€be€considered€in€deciding€whether€the€murder€was€premeditated:€theÐ ¬(ü#( Ðprocurement€and€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€an€unarmed€victim,€the€defendantððsÐ x*È%* Ðdeclarations€of€his€intent€to€kill,€the€infliction€of€multiple€wounds,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€defendantððsÐ D,”', Ðcalmness€immediately€after€the€killing;€and€a€particularly€cruel€killing.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð .`). ÐBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€660€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€541„42Ð à/0+0 Ð(Tenn.€1992).€€Viewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€proof€Ð ¬1ü,2 ÐÌÐ D5”06 Ðwas€sufficient€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€have€found€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÐ ° Ðthat€defendant€killed€Seaborn€intentionally€and€with€premeditation.€€€€Ð |Ì ÐÌà ` àAccordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð  d ÐÌà@xx(àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ ¬ ü  ÐÌà ` àIn€summary,€we€conclude€(1)€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€defendant€didÐ P   Ðnot€establish€the€defense€of€insanity€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€was€notÐ l Ðerror;€(2)€the€current€insanity€defense€statute€is€constitutional;€and€(3)€the€evidenceÐ è8 Ðwas€sufficient€to€support€the€guilty€verdict€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder.€€Ð ´ ÐÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€ò òAFFIRMEDó ó.€€Ð Lœ ÐÌÓÓÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________Ð ¼  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àò òJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEó óÐ ¢ ò ÐÌÌÌò òÌÌCONCUR:Ð &h!% ÐÌÌó óÌ_______________________________ò òÐ Â)%) ÐGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÐ ¨*ø%* ÐÌÌÌó ó_______________________________ò òÐ X.¨). ÐDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEó óÐ >/Ž*/ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ