ÿWPCh I©ÿ…u—4IE8³²Éܯ÷E(G¯Óß,;"Y"K™§Øöí„ÒNÈ zt»%.÷„Póíé£VºÚi;ôqʽÁ®ý›ßq4A"S±Ù¦c[¼Ù`,ò("g<ܧBÐw– ¡Ž]¼P(»Ù¢ÉµLÝjaçvÝí£qì>Pè€xVÝ}¸>*Ýþiä{H¤/ðsF‰~S&˜*e['¦¨®IÛ=ÂØm3ë^¨ÉéÓ&úxþ.Þ jŠ«DæÀ7Ç…“)”4s±y ±£š´÷»%îQ½^á6Çå³»Ôf=ÚŠ:¯è‚L˲5¶J€B®+ý¼è±;ÝËë[;©Ê:ï½V‰§\’kùÕ¯ò)ú&‚c'c¥¥•Kx¯z•œ®\,²‘Å”'×hçläÞ5ç7ãeÑ?«ÿh\åìÖ~½ ¹Üà€—¨ nà?›•B)vpvà1#0©Yd«ÏÎëîaß!GªT)ƒÛÅ_¯²*Ð_=J=Ïžú ã0ÎA홌C˜—ï€K-VȆãPjAìŒ ;¤ šye¿ oû\kº&Ï{ë"¿Ë ñÁëhöuÍ^ì-] © Þ¼ ô‘¯×ÉK…fdÂÒ$» …# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í b w@ 4O c 0 Ær 0D8 œ| ³¹Ë+„U :¯U:é³#U:Ö¹U:É+U:.hépU:YYYYY B““““““““œ°°° D3LLL 0D AOÃÆ 0DØ D/ BK˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- EUFDJeKr‚LDMNeOPQÓ€uM%3|xZ(v(2Õ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XXéXXXÔÔ€ô—¼ôXXXéÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ’Ý ƒ q×$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X3e XXXÔÔ€ô×¹ô XX3eÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€1995€amendment€eliminated€deliberation€as€an€element€of€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð `  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(Supp.€1998)€(ð ðFirst€degree€murder€is:€A€premeditated€and€intentional€killingÏof€another.ðð). ©Ý ƒ q×$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X3e XXXÔÔ€ô×¹ô XX3eÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýð ðVoluntary€manslaughter€is€the€intentional€or€knowing€killing€of€another€in€a€state€of€passionÐ `  Ðproduced€by€adequate€provocation€sufficient€to€lead€a€reasonable€person€to€act€in€an€irrational€manner.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„211(a)€(1997). ¯Ý ƒ q×$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X3e XXXÔÔ€ô×¹ô XX3eÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€indicates€that€both€of€these€witnesses€gave€pre„trial€statements€in€which€theyÐ `  Ðadmitted€that€they€had€initially€failed€to€tell€the€police€that€Tony€Wallace,€Jr.,€had€taken€a€gun€from€theÏcrime€scene€and€hidden€its€existence€from€investigators. !Ý ƒ q×$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X3e XXXÔÔ€ô×¹ô XX3eÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€boot€and€gun€were€apparently€found€in€the€home€of€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€some€time€after€heÐ `  Ðwas€killed.€ò òó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ©Ý ƒ q×$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X3e XXXÔÔ€ô×¹ô XX3eÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýð ðVoluntary€manslaughter€is€the€intentional€or€knowing€killing€of€another€in€a€state€of€passionÐ `  Ðproduced€by€adequate€provocation€sufficient€to€lead€a€reasonable€person€to€act€in€an€irrational€manner.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„211(a)€(1997).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ¯Ý ƒ q×$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X3e XXXÔÔ€ô×¹ô XX3eÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€indicates€that€both€of€these€witnesses€gave€pre„trial€statements€in€which€theyÐ `  Ðadmitted€that€they€had€initially€failed€to€tell€the€police€that€Tony€Wallace,€Jr.,€had€taken€a€gun€from€theÏcrime€scene€and€hidden€its€existence€from€investigators.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular !Ý ƒ q×$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X3e XXXÔÔ€ô×¹ô XX3eÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€boot€and€gun€were€apparently€found€in€the€home€of€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€some€time€after€heÐ `  Ðwas€killed.€ò òó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ßÔ€XXéXXXÔÔ€ XXXéÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XXéX ÔÐ  ÐÌFebruary€19,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d ’Ý ƒ q×$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X3e XXXÔÔ€ô×¹ô XX3eÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€1995€amendment€eliminated€deliberation€as€an€element€of€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð `  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(Supp.€1998)€(ð ðFirst€degree€murder€is:€A€premeditated€and€intentional€killingÏof€another.ðð).'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñQññJñ›ñJññQñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š2¤ŠXXÔÔ€ŠÓnŠŠŠ2¤ÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÆXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñQñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` 8ttxP,` ð  rß›ñQñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌJULY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9604„CC„00174Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àMARION€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€THOMAS€W.€GRAHAMó óÐ Xø  Ðò òCHARLES€HAMLIN,ó óà h àà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal€„€First€Degree€Murder;Ð Xø Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àVoluntary€Manslaughter)Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8Ø ÐÌWILLIAM€H.€ORTWEINà h àà À àà  àœñOñJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPñOññOñ›PAUL€G.€SUMMERSñOñ›Ð (!È ÐOrtwein€&€Associates,€P.C.à À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  "À Ð723€McCallie€AvenueÌChattanooga,€TN€€37403„0016à À àà  àKAREN€M.€YACUZZOÐ $° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌWILLIAM€C.€KILLIANà h àà À àà  à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÐ &  ÐNo.€I€Oak€Avenueà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,TN€€37243Ð ø&˜ ÐJasper,€TN€€37347Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJ.€MICHAEL€TAYLORÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSTEVE€STRAINÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJasper,€TN€€37347ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€AND€MODIFIED€IN€œPARTñPñ;€REMANDED€FOR€RE„¼SENTENCINGñPñ›ÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  x6-. ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„0³„ŠŠÓnÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†ŠÓnŠ„„0³" #ÔÐ `  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓÑ7€ÆXXdìXXdì7ÑÌà ` àOn€May€19,€1995,€a€Marion€County€jury€convicted€Appellant€CharlesÏHamlin€of€one€count€of€first€degree€murder€and€one€count€of€voluntaryÏmanslaughter.€€On€June€29,€1995,€the€trial€court€imposed€concurrent€sentencesÏof€life€imprisonment€for€the€first€degree€murder€conviction€and€seven€years€andÏsix€months€for€the€voluntary€manslaughter€conviction.€€Appellant€challenges€hisÏconvictions,€raising€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓà0 ` à1)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€Appellantððs€conviction€forÏfirst€degree€murder;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€the€State€prevented€Appellant€from€having€a€fair€trial€by€failingÏto€disclose€exculpatory€evidence;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à3)€whether€the€State€engaged€in€prosecutorial€misconduct;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€to€examine€the€Stateððs€file€forÏany€undisclosed€exculpatory€material;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à5)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€allowed€a€witness€for€the€State€toÏtestify€about€the€effects€of€methamphetamine€use;€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à6)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ruled€that€a€gun€and€a€boot€couldÏnot€be€admitted€into€evidence.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓÓAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€part,Ïmodify€the€conviction€of€first€degree€murder€to€second€degree€murder€andÏremand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€for€re„sentencing€on€the€conviction€of€secondÏdegree€murder.ÌÌà@ÑÑ*®àò òI.€€FACTSó óˆÐ œ.<%& ÐÌà ` àClay€Haynes€testified€that€on€the€morning€of€February€19,€1994,€GlennÏWallace,€Jr.,€yelled€at€him€for€waving€to€his€wife,€Sandy€Wallace.€€A€short€timeÏlater,€Haynes€drove€to€his€fatherððs€home,€placed€two€guns€in€his€truck,€and€droveÏto€the€home€of€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.€€When€he€arrived,€Haynes€picked€up€one€of€hisÐ \8ü.0 Ðguns,€got€out€of€his€truck,€and€challenged€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€to€a€fight.€€WhenÏhe€saw€that€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€was€unarmed,€Haynes€put€his€gun€back€in€hisÏtruck€and€then€he€and€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€began€fighting.€As€Haynes€beganÏbeating€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€Glenn€Wallace,€Sr.,€arrived€and€told€Haynes€to€stop.€ÏHaynes€then€heard€a€gunshot€and€he€saw€Glenn€Wallace,€Sr.,€fall€to€the€ground.€ÏHaynes€heard€some€more€gunshots,€saw€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€lying€on€the€ground,Ïand€saw€Appellant€standing€a€few€feet€away.€€At€this€point,€Haynes€fled€the€sceneÏin€his€truck.€€ÌÌà ` àChristy€Haynes€testified€that€she€was€at€her€grandfatherððs€house€when€herÏfather,€Clay€Haynes,€took€two€guns€out€of€the€house€and€put€them€in€his€truck.€ÏClay€Haynes€then€told€Christy€Haynes€that€he€was€upset€over€something€thatÏGlenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€had€done€earlier€that€morning.€€When€Clay€Haynes€droveÏaway,€Christy€Haynes€called€Appellant€and€told€him€that€she€was€worried€aboutÏher€father€because€he€was€taking€some€guns€with€him€to€confront€Glenn€Wallace,ÏJr.€€She€asked€Appellant€to€make€sure€that€nothing€happened€to€her€father,€andÏAppellant€assured€her€that€her€father€would€be€safe.ÌÌà ` àAppellant€testified€that€he€was€working€on€a€truck€in€his€yard€when€heÏheard€his€daughter,€Sandy€Wallace,€yell€for€him€to€help€her€remove€her€childrenÏfrom€the€home€of€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.€€Appellant€then€walked€over€to€GlennÏWallace,€Jr.ððs€home€and€saw€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€fighting€with€Clay€Haynes.€€AtÏthis€point,€Glenn€Wallace,€Sr.,€approached€Appellant€and€told€him€to€leaveÏbecause€the€fight€was€not€his€concern.€€Appellant€testified€that€he€then€shotÏGlenn€Wallace,€Sr.,€when€he€pointed€his€gun€at€Appellant€and€threatened€to€killÏhim.€€Appellant€also€testified€that€he€shot€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€when€he€yelled€andÐ Ð9p02 Ðbegan€running€in€his€direction.€€€Appellant€admitted€that€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€didÏnot€have€any€weapons€in€his€hand€when€Appellant€shot€him.€€Appellant€testifiedÏthat€he€carried€a€loaded€gun€with€him€at€all€times.ÌÌà ` àAppellant€was€convicted€of€voluntary€manslaughter€for€the€killing€of€GlennÏWallace,€Sr.,€and€first€degree€murder€for€the€killing€of€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.ÌÌà@XX®àò òII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ ð  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction€for€the€first€degree€murder€of€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.€€Specifically,ÏAppellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€because€there€was€no€proofÏthat€the€killing€was€committed€with€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€We€agree.ÌÌà ` àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€CourtÏis€obliged€to€review€that€challenge€according€to€certain€well-settled€principles.€€AÏverdict€of€guilty€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimonyÏof€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€in€favor€of€theÏState.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).€€Although€an€accusedÐ P,ð"$ Ðis€originally€cloaked€with€a€presumption€of€innocence,€a€jury€verdict€removes€thisÏpresumption€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,Ð 00Ð&( Ð914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,€on€appeal,€the€burden€of€proof€rests€with€Appellant€toÏdemonstrate€the€insufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€On€appeal,€ð ðtheÐ 4°*, Ð[S]tate€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€allÏreasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€€òòId.óó€€WhereÐ ð7.0 Ðthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€contested€on€appeal,€the€relevant€question€forÐ à9€02 Ðthe€reviewing€court€is€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏaccused€guilty€of€every€element€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.€Ed.€2d€560Ð @ à Ð(1979).€€In€conducting€our€evaluation€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€isÏprecluded€from€reweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€929Ð  À ÐS.W.2d€380,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Moreover,€this€Court€may€notÏsubstitute€its€own€inferences€ð ðfor€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€fromÏcircumstantial€evidence.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€779.€€Finally,€Rule€13(e)€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÐ ð  Ðof€Appellate€Procedure€provides,€ð ðfindings€of€guilt€in€criminal€actions€whether€byÏthe€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÏfindings€by€the€trier€of€fact€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ððÌÌà ` àWhen€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€was€killed€in€1994,€Tennesseeððs€first€degreeÏmurder€statute€provided€that€ð ð[f]irst€degree€murder€is:€[a]n€intentional,Ïpremeditated€and€deliberate€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202Ï(1993).ñJñ׃'×ñJññJñ׃ ×ñJñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Premeditation€requires€a€showing€of€a€previously€formed€design€orÐ p& Ðintent€to€kill.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992).€€€DeliberationÐ `(  Ðrequires€that€the€offense€be€committed€with€cool€purpose,€free€of€the€passions€ofÏthe€moment.€€òòId.óó€€Deliberation€also€requires€ð ðsome€period€of€reflection,€duringÐ @,à"$ Ðwhich€the€mind€is€free€from€the€influence€of€excitement.ðð€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836Ð 0.Ð$& ÐS.W.2d€530,€538€(Tenn.€1992).ñ@ññ9ñ€€€à  à€€€ñ9ññ@ññAñ€€ñAñPremeditation€and€deliberation€areÏdeterminations€for€the€jury€and€may€be€inferred€from€the€manner€andÏcircumstances€of€the€killing.€€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 4 *, ÐApp.€1995).€€However,€a€jury€may€not€engage€in€speculation.€€òòId.óóÐ ð5,. Їà ` àThis€Court€has€previously€recognized€the€nature€of€proof€which€must€beÏpresented€before€a€jury€may€properly€infer€either€deliberation€or€premeditation:ÌñBñÓÓñBñà0 ` à(1)€facts€about€how€and€what€the€defendant€did€prior€to€the€actual€killingÏwhich€show€he€was€engaged€in€activity€directed€toward€the€killing,€that€is,Ïplanning€activity;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à(2)€facts€about€the€defendantððs€prior€relationship€and€conduct€with€theÏvictim€from€which€motive€may€be€inferred;€€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à(3)€facts€about€the€nature€of€the€killing€from€which€it€may€be€inferred€thatÏthe€manner€of€killing€was€so€particular€and€exacting€that€the€defendantÏmust€have€intentionally€killed€according€to€a€preconceived€design.€€ñCñÐ ` T$` T$ ÐñCñÌñBñÓz,ÓñBñòòState€v.€Schaferóó,€973€S.W.2d€269,€273€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(citing€òòState€v.Ð ø˜  ÐGentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€4ð!ð5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)).€€Ð èˆ ÐÌà ` àIn€this€case,€the€State€failed€to€introduce€any€evidence€establishing€theÏelements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€First,€there€was€absolutely€noÏevidence€that€Appellant€had€planned€to€kill€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€or€that€heÏengaged€in€any€activity€to€further€that€plan.€€There€was€also€no€proof€thatÏAppellant€killed€with€a€ð ðcool€purposeðð€or€that€he€had€any€time€between€hisÏdecision€to€kill€and€the€act€of€killing€during€which€he€could€reflect€on€his€decision.€ÏThe€Stateððs€only€argument€on€appeal€is€that€the€jury€could€have€inferred€that€afterÏhe€received€the€telephone€call€from€Christy€Haynes€about€the€fight€between€ClayÏHaynes€and€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€Appellant€dispassionately€went€to€the€scene€ofÏthe€fight€for€the€purpose€of€killing€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.€€While€this€theory€may€haveÏbeen€true,€it€remains€only€a€theory€because€the€State€failed€to€support€it€withÏevidence.€€While€the€jury€may€have€speculated€that€the€Stateððs€theory€was€true,Ïspeculation€is€not€a€substitute€for€proof.€€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€148.€€Ð 3¨)+ ÐÌà ` àIn€addition,€the€State€failed€to€introduce€any€evidence€about€AppellantððsÏrelationship€with€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€that€established€a€motive€for€the€killing.€Ð Ø8x/1 ÐAlthough€there€was€some€evidence€that€Appellantððs€daughter€and€Glenn€Wallace,ÏJr.,€had€been€experiencing€some€marital€difficulties,€there€was€no€evidence€thatÏAppellant€himself€had€experienced€any€problems€with€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.€ÏFurther,€the€State€did€not€introduce€any€facts€about€the€nature€of€the€killing€fromÏwhich€the€jury€could€have€inferred€that€Appellant€had€intentionally€killed€accordingÏto€a€preconceived€design.€€In€fact,€none€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses€testified€that€theyÏhad€even€seen€the€actual€killing€of€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€they€only€testified€that€theyÏheard€gunshots€and€then€saw€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€lying€on€the€ground€andÏAppellant€standing€nearby.€€Indeed,€the€only€evidence€presented€by€the€StateÏabout€the€nature€of€the€killing€was€evidence€that€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€had€diedÏfrom€a€single€gunshot€wound€to€the€head.€€This€evidence€does€not€establishÏeither€premeditation€or€deliberation€in€any€way.ÌÌà ` à€ð ðThe€law€in€Tennessee€has€long€recognized€that€once€the€homicide€hasÏbeen€established,€it€is€presumed€to€be€murder€in€the€second€degree.€€The€stateÏbears€the€burden€of€proof€on€the€issue€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€sufficientÏto€elevate€the€offense€to€first-degree€murder.ðð€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€543€(citationÐ `(  Ðomitted).€€In€this€case,€the€State€has€simply€failed€to€meet€this€burden€and€theÏpresumption€of€second€degree€murder€is€therefore€unrebutted.€€There€is€however,Ïample€evidence€in€the€record€to€establish€that€Appellant€knowingly€shot€and€killedÏGlenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€without€the€adequate€provocation€required€to€reduce€theÏconviction€to€voluntary€manslaughter.ñJñ׃ ×ñJññJñ׃×ñJñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Accordingly,€we€modify€AppellantððsÐ 2°(* Ðconviction€to€second€degree€murder€and€we€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€forÏresentencing.Ð ð5,. Їà@ôô ®àò òIII.€€SUPPRESSION€OF€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€he€did€not€receive€a€fair€trial€because€the€StateÏsuppressed€exculpatory€evidence.€€Specifically,€Appellant€claims€that€the€StateÏwithheld€four€witness€statements€and€a€lab€report€that€were€favorable€to€hisÏdefense.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.€Ct.€1194,€10€L.€Ed.€2d€215Ð    Ð(1963),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€prosecution€has€aÏconstitutional€duty€to€furnish€the€accused€with€exculpatory€evidence€pertaining€toÏeither€the€accusedððs€guilt€or€innocence€and€the€potential€punishment€that€may€beÏimposed.€€Failure€to€reveal€exculpatory€evidence€violates€due€process€where€theÏevidence€is€material€either€to€guilt€or€punishment,€irrespective€of€good€faith€or€badÏfaith€of€the€prosecution.€€òòId.óó€373€U.S.€at€87,€83€S.€Ct.€at€1196ð!ð97.€€€TheÐ  "@ Ðprosecution€must€also€disclose€evidence€which€may€be€used€by€the€defense€toÏimpeach€a€witness.€€òòGiglio€v.€United€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€150,€154ð!ð55,€92€S.€Ct.€763,Ð €&  Ð766,€31€L€.Ed.€2d€104€(1972);€òòWorkman€v.€Stateóó,€868€S.W.2d€705,€709€(Tenn.Ð p(  ÐCrim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà ` àBefore€a€reviewing€court€may€find€a€due€process€violation€under€òòBradyóó,€allÐ @.à$& Ðof€the€following€four€prerequisites€must€be€satisfied:ÌñDñÓÓñDñà0 ` à1)€The€defendant€must€have€requested€the€information€(unless€theÏevidence€is€obviously€exculpatory,€in€which€case€the€State€is€bound€toÏrelease€the€information€whether€requested€or€not);Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€The€State€must€have€suppressed€the€information;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à3)€The€information€must€have€been€favorable€to€the€accused;€€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à4)€The€information€must€have€been€material.€€ñEñÐ ` T$` T$ Ðâ âñEñÐ ð7.0 ÐñDñÓBÓñDñòòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€òòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419,Ð `  Ðâ â434,€115€S.€Ct.€1555,€1566,€131€L.€Ed.€2d€490€(1995),€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€stated€that€in€determining€whether€information€is€material,€ð ð[t]heÏquestion€is€not€whether€the€defendant€would€more€likely€than€not€have€receivedÏa€different€verdict€with€the€evidence,€but€whether€in€its€absence€he€received€a€fairÏtrial,€understood€as€a€trial€resulting€in€a€verdict€worthy€of€confidence.ðð€ÌÌà@#®àò òA.€€Witness€Statementsó óˆÐ ð  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€State€violated€òòBradyóó€when€it€failed€to€discloseÐ à€ Ðthe€pre„trial€statements€of€four€witnesses.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ` àFirst,€Appellant€contends€that€the€State€violated€òòBradyóó€when€it€failed€toÐ ° P Ðdisclose€the€pre„trial€statement€of€William€Rapier.€€However,€Appellant€has€failedÏto€identify€any€part€of€the€record€that€indicates€that€Rapier€made€any€suchÏstatement,€that€the€State€possessed€the€statement,€or€that€it€was€the€least€bitÏexculpatory.€€Indeed,€the€trial€court€specifically€found€that€there€was€no€proof€thatÏthe€State€ever€had€any€statement€from€Rapier€that€it€failed€to€disclose.€ÌÌà ` àSecond,€Appellant€contends€that€the€State€also€violated€òòBradyóó€when€itÐ @.à$& Ðfailed€to€disclose€the€pre„trial€statements€of€Joyce€Davis€and€Tony€Wallace,€Jr.ñJñ׃×ñJññJñ׃×ñJñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р00Ð&( ÐHowever,€Appellant€concedes€that€the€State€provided€him€with€these€statementsÏduring€trial.€€This€Court€has€previously€stated€that€ð ð[i]f€previously€undisclosedÏevidence€is€disclosed€during€trial,€then€no€òòBradyóó€violation€occurs€unless€prejudiceÐ 6 ,. Ðresults€from€the€delayed€disclosure.ðð€€òòState€v.€Jim€Inmanóó,€No.€ñNñœñNñ03C0ñLñ3ñLññMñ1ñMñ„9201„CR„Ð `  Ð00020,ñNñ›ñNñ€1993€WL€483321,€at€*9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Nov.€23,€1993)Ï(citingòò€United€States€v.€Wordóó,€806€F.2d€658,€665€(ñNññKñœñKññNñ6th€Cir.€1986)).€€Appellant€hasÐ @ à Ðfailed€to€indicate€anything€that€he€could€or€would€have€done€differently€if€he€hadÏknown€about€these€statements€before€trial.€€Indeed,€the€record€indicates€thatÏAppellantððs€counsel€reviewed€each€statement€and€thoroughly€cross„examinedÏboth€witnesses€about€their€pre„trial€statements.€€Thus,€Appellant€has€not€shownÏthat€he€was€prejudiced€by€disclosure€of€these€statements€during€trial€as€opposedÏto€disclosure€before€trial.ÌÌà ` àFinally,€Appellant€contends€that€the€State€violated€òòBradyóó€when€it€failed€toÐ À` Ðdisclose€a€pre„trial€statement€of€Sandy€Wallace€in€which€she€mentioned€theÏexistence€of€another€witness,€Sherry€Dixson,€about€whom€Appellant€had€noÏprevious€knowledge.€€Appellant€is€correct€that€the€general€rule€is€that€theÏprosecution€has€ð ða€duty€to€disclose€the€names€and€addresses€of€witnesses€whoÏcould€exonerate€the€accused,€corroborate€the€accusedððs€position€in€asserting€hisÏinnocence,€or€possessed€favorable€information€that€would€have€enabled€defenseÏcounsel€to€conduct€further€and€possibly€fruitful€investigation.ðð€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,Ð P*ð " Ð845€S.W.2d€228,€233€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€However,€ð ð[t]he€prosecution€isÏnot€required€to€disclose€information€that€the€accused€already€possesses€or€is€ableÏto€obtain.ðð€€òòId.óó€€ð ðWhen€exculpatory€evidence€is€equally€available€to€theÐ  0À&( Ðprosecution€and€the€accused,€the€accused€ððmust€bear€the€responsibility€of€[his]Ïfailure€to€seek€its€discovery.ðððð€òòId.óó€(citation€omitted).€€In€this€case,€the€informationÐ 4 *, Ðcontained€in€Sandy€Wallaceððs€statement€was€equally€available€to€both€parties.€€Ï€Indeed,€Sandy€Wallace€is€Appellantððs€daughter€and€she€testified€as€a€defenseÏwitness€at€trial.€€There€is€absolutely€no€indication€that€had€Appellant€asked€hisÐ Ð9p02 Ðdaughter€whether€she€knew€of€any€other€witnesses,€she€would€have€refused€toÏdisclose€the€name€of€Sherry€Dixson.€€Further,€the€record€indicates€that€SherryÏDixson€lived€in€the€neighborhood€where€the€killings€took€place.€€Thus,€AppellantÏcould€easily€have€identified€her€as€a€possible€witness€and€asked€her€whether€sheÏhad€seen€or€heard€anything€on€the€day€of€the€killings.€€In€short,€because€thisÏinformation€was€equally€available€to€both€Appellant€and€the€State,€AppellantÏð ðmust€bear€the€responsibility€of€[his]€failure€to€seek€its€discovery.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ    ÐÌà@ÌÌ'®àò òB.€€Lab€Reportó óˆÐ à€ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€he€did€not€receive€a€fair€trial€because€the€StateÏsuppressed€a€lab€report€of€tests€performed€on€the€shirts€that€Glenn€Wallace,€Sr.,Ïwas€wearing€when€he€was€killed.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ` àAlthough€the€sequence€of€events€concerning€the€lab€reports€is€somewhatÏunclear,€it€appears€that€the€trial€court€originally€imposed€a€deadline€of€July€31,Ï1994,€for€the€State€to€provide€Appellant€with€results€of€tests€preformed€on€theÏvictims.€€At€that€time,€the€State€notified€Appellant€and€the€court€that€it€could€notÏpredict€when€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€would€complete€its€testingÏand€thus,€it€could€not€guarantee€disclosure€of€the€reports€by€a€certain€date.€ÌÌà ` àOn€February€1,€1995,€the€T.B.I.€reported€the€results€of€its€tests€on€the€bodyÏof€Glenn€Wallace,€Sr.€€The€results€indicated€that€there€was€gunshot€residue€onÏhis€hands€and€that€he€ð ðcould€have€fired,€handled,€or€[been]€near€a€gun€when€itÏfired.ðð€€These€results€were€included€in€a€stipulation€that€was€read€to€the€jury.€ÌÐ à9€02 Ðà ` àOn€March€8,€1995,€the€State€notified€Appellant€and€the€court€that€it€hadÏsubmitted€Glenn€Wallace,€Sr.ððs€shirts€for€gunshot€residue€testing.€€The€StateÏindicated€that€it€had€not€submitted€the€shirts€earlier€because€it€had€not€known€thatÏthey€were€in€the€possession€of€the€local€sheriffððs€office.€€Appellant€and€the€courtÏboth€agreed€that€the€State€had€not€intentionally€withheld€the€evidence,€and€theÏcourt€informed€Appellant€that€he€could€request€a€continuance€if€he€neededÏadditional€time€to€review€the€lab€results€when€they€were€released.€€The€T.B.I.Ïreleased€its€report€on€May€3,€1995.€€The€test€results€indicated€that€there€wasÏgunshot€residue€on€both€the€shirt€and€undershirt€of€Glenn€Wallace,€Sr.,€butÏbecause€of€the€absence€of€gunpowder€or€lead€vapor€residues,€it€was€not€possibleÏto€determine€a€muzzle„to„garment€distance.€€These€findings€were€also€includedÏin€the€stipulation€that€was€read€to€the€jury.€ÌÌà ` àThe€T.B.I.€subsequently€performed€additional€testing€on€the€outer€shirt€ofÏGlenn€Wallace,€Sr.€€This€test€revealed€the€ð ðpresence€of€particles€unique€toÏgunshot€primer€residue.ðð€€The€T.B.I.€agent€who€performed€the€test€surmised€thatÏthe€primer€residue€had€traveled€with€the€bullet€and€had€been€deposited€on€theÏclothing€upon€impact.€€The€T.B.I.€reported€these€test€results€on€July€7,€1995,Ïapproximately€two€months€after€Appellantððs€trial€was€completed.€€The€StateÏprovided€Appellant€with€a€copy€of€the€report€as€soon€as€it€received€it.ÌÌà ` àIn€its€order€denying€Appellantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial,€the€trial€court€foundÏthat€the€Stateððs€failure€to€provide€Appellant€with€this€third€lab€report€before€trial€didÏnot€violate€òòBradyóó.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€State€had€not€suppressed€eitherÐ ð5,. ÐGlenn€Wallace,€Sr.ððs€shirts€or€the€results€of€tests€performed€on€those€shirts.€€TheÏtrial€court€also€found€that,€even€assuming€that€the€State€had€suppressed€thisÐ Ð9p02 Ðevidence,€there€had€been€no€showing€that€the€evidence€was€either€exculpatoryÏor€material€under€the€standards€of€òòKylesóó.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€evidenceÐ P ð Ðin€the€third€lab€report€was€not€material€because€evidence€that€there€was€gunshotÏresidue€on€the€shirt€of€Glenn€Wallace,€Sr.,€was€completely€consistent€with€the€labÏreport€that€had€been€read€to€the€jury€which€indicated€that€there€was€gunshotÏresidue€on€the€hands€of€Glenn€Wallace,€Sr.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€found€that€thereÏwas€no€new€evidence€in€the€third€lab€report€that€supported€Appellantððs€claim€ofÏself€defense.€ÌÌà ` à€ð ðThe€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€made€by€the€trial€court€afterÏan€evidentiary€hearing€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict;€€this€Court€will€notÏset€aside€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€theÏrecord€preponderates€against€its€findings.ðð€€òòState€v.€Dickóó,€872€S.W.2d€938,€943Ð   @ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citation€omitted).€€Appellant€has€failed€to€identifyÏanything€in€the€record€that€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€WeÏagree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€absence€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€thirdÏlab€report€did€not€deprive€Appellant€of€ð ða€trial€resulting€in€a€verdict€worthy€ofÏconfidence.ðð€€òòKylesóó,€514€U.S.€at€434,€115€S.€Ct.€at€1566.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.Ð P*ð " ÐÌà@NN ®àò òIV.€€PROSECUTORIAL€MISCONDUCTó óˆÐ 0.Ð$& ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€State€engaged€in€prosecutorial€misconduct€byÏwithholding€the€pre„trial€statements€of€Joyce€Davis€and€Tony€Wallace,€Jr.,€andÏthe€T.B.I.€lab€report€of€July€7,€1995.€€We€disagree.Ìâ âÐ ð7.0 Ðà ` àThis€Court€has€stated€that€in€order€to€prevail€on€a€claim€that€prosecutorialÏâ âmisconduct€denied€the€defendant€of€a€fair€trial,€the€defendant€is€required€to€showÏthat€the€misconduct€was€so€improper€that€it€ð ðaffected€the€verdict€to€his€detriment.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Grayóó,€960€S.W.2d€598,€609€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(citation€omitted).€Ð 0Ð Ðð ðIn€reviewing€an€allegation€of€improper€conduct,€this€Court€should€considerÏseveral€factors€including€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor,€the€curative€measuresÏwhich€were€undertaken€by€the€court,€the€improper€conduct€viewed€in€context€andÏin€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case,€the€cumulative€effect€of€theÏ[improper€conduct]€with€any€other€errors€in€the€record,€and€the€relative€strengthÏor€weakness€of€the€case.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citation€omitted).€Ð Ðp ÐÌà ` àIn€this€case,€Appellant€has€simply€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€showing€thatÏhe€was€prejudiced€by€the€alleged€misconduct.€€As€previously€discussed,€the€StateÏdisclosed€the€statements€of€Joyce€Davis€and€Tony€Wallace,€Jr.,€to€Appellant€atÏtrial€and€Appellantððs€counsel€vigorously€cross„examined€both€witnesses€about€theÏstatements.€€In€addition,€Appellant€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€failure€of€the€StateÏto€disclose€the€third€T.B.I.€lab€report€before€trial€because€the€report€contained€noÏexculpatory€evidence€that€was€not€already€before€the€jury.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà@´ ´ ®àò òV.€€FAILURE€TO€INSPECT€THE€STATEððS€FILEó óˆÐ  0À&( ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€to€perform€an€inÏcamera€inspection€of€the€Stateððs€file€to€determine€whether€it€contained€anyÏundisclosed€exculpatory€material.€€Appellant€also€claims€that€the€trial€court€erredÏwhen€it€failed€to€have€the€file€sealed€and€preserved€for€appeal.€€We€disagree.Ð à9€02 Їà ` àThe€record€indicates€that€on€June€23,€1995,€one€month€after€completionÏof€the€trial,€Appellant€filed€a€motion€asking€the€court€to€order€the€State€to€submitÏits€file€for€inspection.€€Although€the€trial€court€apparently€denied€this€motion,€theÏrecord€does€not€contain€an€order€to€that€effect.€€Appellant€then€claimed€in€hisÏamended€motion€for€a€new€trial€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€inspectionÏmotion.€€Following€a€hearing€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial,€the€trial€court€issuedÏan€order€which€stated€that€in€regard€to€Appellantððs€request€that€the€court€inspectÏthe€Stateððs€file,€Appellant€ð ðwas€not€entitled€to€such€extraordinary€relief€and€[heÏhad]€presented€no€authority€for€that€relief.ðð€€Although€the€record€contains€a€portionÏof€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial,€it€does€not€contain€the€portion€thatÏaddressed€this€issue.€€Therefore,€it€is€not€possible€for€this€Court€to€consider€theÏarguments€of€counsel,€any€evidence€presented,€or€the€reasoning€of€the€trial€court.€Ïð ðAbsent€the€necessary€relevant€material€in€the€record€an€appellate€court€cannotÏconsider€the€merits€of€an€issue.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€561€(Tenn.Ð "0 Ð1993)€(citing€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€€Appellant€has€failed€to€properly€preserveÏthis€issue€for€appeal.ÌÌà ` àHowever,€it€appears€that€even€if€this€issue€had€not€been€waived,€AppellantÏwould€still€not€be€entitled€to€relief.€€In€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€540ð!ð41Ð @,à"$ Ð(Tenn.€1993),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€trial€court€had€notÏabused€its€discretion€when€it€refused€to€conduct€an€in€camera€inspection€of€theÏStateððs€file€because€the€defendant€had€not€asked€the€court€to€inspect€anyÏparticular€piece€of€evidence€and€there€had€been€no€proof€that€the€State€hadÏcommitted€any€òòBradyóó€violations.€€Similarly,€there€is€no€proof€that€the€StateÐ ð5,. Ðviolated€its€òòBradyóó€duties€in€this€case.€€In€addition,€rather€than€asking€the€trial€courtÐ à7€.0 Ðto€inspect€a€specific€piece€of€evidence,€Appellant€likewise€asked€the€trial€court€toÐ Ð9p02 Ðsearch€the€entire€file€for€any€exculpatory€evidence€that€might€be€in€it.€€UnderÏthese€circumstances,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€when€it€declinedÏto€inspect€the€Stateððs€file€and€seal€the€file€for€appellate€review.€€This€issue€has€noÏmerit.ÌÌà@»»®àò òVI.€€TESTIMONY€ABOUT€THE€EFFECTS€OF€METHAMPHETAMINE€USEó óˆÐ °  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€allowed€a€witness€forÏthe€State€to€testify€about€the€effects€of€methamphetamine€on€the€human€body.€ÏHowever,€Appellant€has€failed€to€support€this€contention€with€any€argument€orÏany€citation€to€authority.€€Thus,€Appellant€has€waived€this€issue.€€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.ÏApp.€R.€10(b).€€ÌÌà ` àNotwithstanding€Appellantððs€waiver€of€this€issue,€we€conclude€that€even€onÏthe€merits,€Appellant€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€€The€record€indicates€that€DoctorÏCharles€Harlan€testified€on€direct€examination€that€Glenn€Wallace,€Sr.,€had€0.2Ïmicrograms€of€methamphetamine€per€milliliter€in€his€blood€at€the€time€of€his€deathÏand€that€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.,€had€0.1€micrograms€of€methamphetamine€perÏmilliliter€in€his€blood€at€the€time€of€his€death.€€Dr.€Harlan€then€testified€thatÏmethamphetamine€is€sometimes€used€to€make€a€person€more€alert.€€AppellantÏdid€not€object€to€any€of€this€testimony.ÌÌà ` àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Harlan€stated€that€although€he€had€neverÏtreated€anyone€who€had€taken€methamphetamine,€he€had€conducted€researchÏregarding€methamphetamineððs€effects€on€the€human€body.€€Appellantððs€counselÏthen€went€on€to€question€Dr.€Harlan€about€the€physical€and€mental€effects€thatÐ à9€02 Ðmethamphetamine€use€could€have€on€a€person.€€When€Dr.€Harlan€reiterated€onÏre„direct€examination€that€methamphetamine€is€sometimes€used€to€make€aÏperson€more€alert,€Appellantððs€counsel€objected,€claiming€that€Dr.€Harlan€was€notÏqualified€to€make€that€statement.€ÌÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€even€if€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€allowed€Dr.€Harlan€toÏtestify€about€the€effects€of€methamphetamine€use,€it€was€harmless€error€becauseÏAppellant€was€not€prejudiced€by€it.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€Indeed,€Dr.Ð ð  ÐHarlan€had€already€given€identical€testimony€without€objection.€€Further,ÏAppellantððs€own€expert€witness,€Doctor€Chris€Blevins,€testified€that€people€inÏcertain€professions€take€methamphetamine€in€order€to€remain€alert.€€Thus,€thisÏissue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@``!®àò òVII.€€EXCLUSION€OF€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ "0 ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ruled€that€he€could€notÏintroduce€Glenn€Wallace,€Jr.ððs€boot€and€a€gun€that€was€allegedly€found€in€thatÏboot€into€evidence.ñNñ׃×ñNññNñ׃×ñNñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Once€again,€however,€Appellant€has€failed€to€support€thisÐ `*!" Ðcontention€with€any€argument€or€any€citation€to€authority.€€Thus,€this€issue€is€alsoÏwaived.€€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b).€€In€addition,€despite€the€trial€courtððsÏstatement€that€it€would€allow€Appellant€to€make€on€offer€of€proof,€Appellant€failedÏto€include€the€gun€and€the€boot€in€the€record€and€also€failed€to€make€any€offer€ofÏproof€as€to€why€they€were€relevant.€€Thus,€this€Court€has€no€basis€upon€which€toÏreview€the€trial€courtððs€decision€that€this€evidence€should€not€be€admittedÐ 6 ,. Ðbecause€it€was€simply€not€relevant€to€any€issue€in€the€case.€€ð ðAbsent€theÏnecessary€relevant€material€in€the€record€an€appellate€court€cannot€consider€theÏmerits€of€an€issue.ðð€€òòBallardóó,€855€S.W.2d€at€561€(citing€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€Ð @ à ÐAppellant€has€failed€to€properly€preserve€this€issue€for€appeal.ÌÌà@ÜÜ&®àò òVIII.€€CONCLUSIONó óˆÐ °  ÐÌà ` àBecause€we€hold€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€AppellantððsÏconviction€for€first€degree€murder,€we€modify€his€conviction€to€second€degreeÏmurder€and€we€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€for€resentencing.€€In€all€otherÏrespects,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌñFñÌà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àÌÌÌÌñFñÓ  ÓñFñà ` àÌÌñFñÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€SPECIAL€JUDGE