ÿWPCL = %fw@l 0ܬU:ˆ4ÂÖ AQå6 0 6 0DVÆš 0J` 0Tª 0^þ 0h\ 0rÄ 0D6 0|z 0†ö 0| 1u 0d Bå U&* 0@, 0DlB)° D/ÙDC BK D3h AM›Êè²¶^Sê±`›þûLù ¹E#`þ%ˆ^* æ/´3ź:_=]Þ?‘;Bv~ÌDvÓJFX 2D3D45D6E78D9:Ó€F(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regularn~<$3|xF "#%Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ(Ð(3äˆ$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€¬ýXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Arial("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó% Line 7 d'''÷ÿ dxd$$$$7Border 1ddüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxd "&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÀÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òMayÏ12,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó úÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À¬ýXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€acknowledge€conflicts€in€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€presented€at€trial€with€regardÏto€the€approximate€time€of€events€and€other€minor€details.€€Rather€than€recite€the€testimony€ofÏeach€individual€witness,€we€summarize€the€facts€surrounding€this€offense€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€State.Ì “Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀLÿXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€proof€established€that€the€thirty„four€year€old€Demetrius€and€the€eighteen€year€oldÏappellant€were€friends€and€had€known€each€other€their€entire€lives€as€they€grew€up€in€the€sameÏneighborhood.€Ì TÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀLÿXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellantððs€mother€testified€that€she€routinely€soaked€the€appellantððs€shoes€inÏbleach€water€because€of€a€foot€odor€problem.Ì àÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔThe€appellantððs€mother€also€explained€that€the€substance€which€appeared€to€be€bloodÏon€his€sock€was€actually€rust.€Ô€!XÔÌ VÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀLÿXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóPrior€to€the€appellantððs€confession,€the€police€were€under€the€belief€that€the€victimððsÏdeath€had€resulted€from€a€gun€shot€wound.€Ì ôÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀLÿXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóA€photograph€of€the€stick€was€introduced€at€trial.€€Although€no€description€of€the€ð ðstickðð€isÏcontained€in€the€record,€the€photograph€depicts€a€small€tree€limb,€slightly€larger€than€a€broomÏhandle.€€The€appellant€stated€that€the€ð ðstickðð€broke€in€two€during€his€attack€of€the€victim.Ì BÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀLÿXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóDr.€Smith€estimated€that,€at€a€minimum,€approximately€ten€separate€blows€were€inflictedÏto€the€head€and€neck€region.Ì ¯Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀLÿXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAt€trial,€the€State€sought€admission€of€photographs€taken€at€the€crime€scene€and€at€theÏappellantððs€home,€òòi.e.óó,€Exhibits€2€„€9,€13,€and€19„22.€€Defense€counsel€made€a€continuingÏobjection€to€the€photographs€at€trial.Ì VÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀLÿXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóRule€16,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ìà8 à(1)€Information€Subject€to€DisclosureÌà8 à.€.€.€Ìà8 à(C)€€Documents€and€Tangible€Objects.€„„„€Upon€request€of€the€defendant,€theÏstate€òòshall€permit€the€defendant€to€inspect€and€copy€or€photographóó€books,Ïpapers,€documents,€photographs,€tangible€objects,€buildings€or€places,€or€copiesÏor€portions€thereof,€which€are€within€the€possession,€custody€or€control€of€theÏstate,€and€which€are€material€to€the€preparation€of€the€defendantððs€defense€or€areÏintended€for€use€by€the€state€as€evidence€in€chief€at€the€trial,€or€were€obtainedÏfrom€or€belong€to€the€defendant.Ì ~Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀLÿXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWhile€we€fail€to€find€any€authority€expressly€prohibiting€the€Shelby€County€DistrictÏAttorney€Generalððs€Office€practice€of€delaying€development€of€photographs€until€immediately€priorÏto€trial,€we€note€that€other€jurisdictions€have€expressed€the€opinion€that€such€practice€by€theÏState,€although€not€technically€a€discovery€violation,€is€not€to€be€encouraged.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.ÏBizzleóó,€608€S.W.2d€111,€113€(Mo.€App.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€(Mo.€1980).€€€Likewise,€we€fail€to€concludeÏthat€the€benefits€to€the€State€accruing€from€the€delay€of€development€outweigh€the€defendantððsÏright€to€inspect€and€copy€the€photographs.€€Additionally,€we€cannot€sanction€the€prosecutorððsÏproffered€remedy€in€the€present€case€that€defense€counsel€has€the€obligation€to€develop€theÏphotographs.€€It€is€the€obligation€of€the€State,€pursuant€to€Rule€16,€to€permit€inspection€ofÏphotographs€which€it€intends€to€use€as€evidence€in€its€case„in„chief.€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀLÿXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€does€not€dispute€that€the€receipt€for€the€photographs€was€contained€inÏthe€discovery€file.€€Clearly,€defense€counsel€was€given€notice€of€the€possibility€of€photographicÏevidence€at€trial.€€Accordingly,€the€most€prudent€action€would€have€been€for€defense€counsel€toÏfile€a€motion€to€compel€discovery€with€the€court.Ì ªÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀLÿXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€In€addition€to€the€motion€to€suppress,€defense€counsel€apparently€filed€numerousÏmotions€one€hour€before€the€trial€was€to€commence.€€Again,€defense€counselððs€failure€to€raiseÏthese€issues€prior€to€trial€resulted€in€waiver€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b).€€Prior€to€theÏhearing,€the€State€argued€that€the€appellantððs€motions€had€been€dismissed€or€withdrawn€due€toÏdefense€counselððs€failure€to€appear€at€the€previous€motion€date.€The€hearing€on€the€motion€toÏsuppress€was€originally€scheduled€for€hearing€on€October€18,€1996.€€On€that€date,€defenseÏcounsel€stated€that€she€appeared€in€court,€however,€both€the€trial€judge€and€the€prosecutor€wereÏin€trial.€€Defense€counsel€explained€that€the€court€clerk€agreed€to€reset€the€hearing€date€for€theÏmotions.€€Defense€counsel€conceded€that€she€was€never€able€to€confirm€the€date.€€DefenseÏcounsel€also€admitted€that€she€made€no€effort€to€contact€the€court€with€regard€to€these€matters.€ÏAlthough€not€entirely€clear€from€the€record,€it€appears€that€the€motions€were€reset€for€November€7,Ï1996.€€€Again,€defense€counsel€failed€to€appear.€€Defense€counsel€explained€that€the€clerkððsÏoffice€informed€her€that€this€date€was€a€motion€deadline€and€not€a€date€to€be€heard,€and€therefore,Ïshe€felt€that€she€did€not€have€to€appear.€€Apparently,€defense€counsel€had€her€secretary€and€a€lawÏclerk€involved€to€some€extent€in€these€matters.€€We€join€in€the€trial€courtððs€admonition€of€trialÏcounselððs€conduct€in€her€management€of€pre„trial€motions.Ì »Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAlthough€the€trial€courtððs€articulated€findings€regarding€the€motion€to€suppress€areÏmeager,€we€find€that€the€courtððs€recitation€is€minimally€sufficient€to€accredit€its€findings.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,ÏòòState€v.€Tateóó,€No.€02C01„9605„CR„00164€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Dec.€3,€1997).Ì UÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóBecause€we€have€found€the€appellantððs€confession€admissible,€we€reject€his€alternativeÏargument€that€there€is€no€evidence€that€ð ðlinkedðð€the€appellant€to€Demetrius€Motenððs€murder.Ì SÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóFirst€degree€murder,€not€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€a€crime,€requires€theÏð ðpremeditated€and€intentional€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(1995ÏSupp.).Ì ‡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóClearly,€the€Stateððs€theory€€of€the€appellantððs€motive€for€the€murder€was€robbery.€€WeÏnote€that€the€appellant€was€not€charged€with€the€robbery€of€the€victim,€nor€was€he€charged€withÏmurder€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€a€robbery.€ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  Óò òÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ àAPRIL€SESSION,€1998ÌÙ€ ÙßR€)*&A1-j|¹P` | `€€@ÿRßÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9706„CR„00227Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Carolyn€Wade€Blackett,€JudgeÌQUINCY€L.€HENDERSON,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Premeditated€First€Degree€Murder)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)Ìó óÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òKathleen€L.€Caldwelló óà àà àò òà àJohn€Knox€Walkupó óÌTaylor,€Halliburton,€Ledbetterà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ€€€&€Caldwellà àÌ44€North€Second,€Suite€200à àà àò òDouglas€D.€Himesó óÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€JusticeÏDivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌò òà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€L.€Gibbonsó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òà àà àà àà àà àà àReginald€Hendersonó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€ComplexÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSuite€301,€201€Poplar€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àò òòòOPINIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Quincy€L.€Henderson,€was€sentenced€to€a€term€of€lifeÏimprisonment€following€his€conviction€by€a€Shelby€County€jury€for€the€premeditatedÏfirst€degree€murder€of€Demetrius€Moten.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€appellantÏcontends€that:ÌÓÓà8 àI.€€The€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€photographs€into€evidence€notÏdisclosed€during€pre„trial€discovery;ÌÌà8 àII.€€The€appellantððs€pre„trial€confession€was€obtained€in€violation€of€hisÏFifth€Amendment€rights€and€its€admission€constitutes€reversible€error;ÏandÌÌà8 àIII.€€The€evidence€is€not€sufficient€to€uphold€a€conviction€forÏpremeditated€first€degree€murder.ÌÌÓÓÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record€and€the€applicable€law,€we€find€the€evidenceÏinsufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€premeditated€first€degree€murder.€ÏAccordingly,€we€vacate€the€judgment€of€conviction€and€sentence€entered€by€theÏtrial€court.€€However,€we€do€find€the€evidence€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€ofÏsecond€degree€murder.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€proceedingsÏconsistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌÌà@ àò òBackgroundó óÌÌà àOn€July€7,€1995,€Demetrius€Moten€and€her€four€children€visited€with€familyÏand€friends€in€the€Dunnavant€Street€area€of€Memphis.€€Later€that€afternoon,€Ms.ÏMoten€was€at€the€residence€of€her€uncle,€Orange€Williams,€who€lived€in€theÏDunnavant€Manor€Apartments.€€€At€7:00€p.m.,€she€announced€to€her€uncle€andÏJerry€Herron,€a€friend,€that€she€was€hungry€and€was€going€to€get€a€sandwich.€ÏOrange€Williams€gave€Demetrius€ten€dollars€and€asked€her€to€bring€him€back€aÏcheeseburger.€€Shortly€thereafter,€she€was€observed€at€a€neighborhood€bar€andÏgrill,€known€by€the€local€residents€as€ð ðSamððs€Club.ðð× ƒ+ ××  ×€€While€in€the€club,€JuliusÏMoten,€Demetriusðð€father,€saw€his€daughter€drinking€a€beer€at€the€club€with€some€ofÏher€cousins€and€friends.€€He€recalled€that€he€instructed€his€daughter€to€go€home€toÏher€children.€€ÌÌà àBetween€8:30€and€9:00€p.m.,€William€Baker€and€Yolanda€Cribbs€each€sawÏDemetrius€and€the€appellant€leaving€Samððs€Club€together.× ƒ, ××  ×€€The€two€were€walkingÏtoward€the€Dunnavant€Manor€Apartments.€€Demetrius€was€carrying€a€brown€paperÏbag€in€her€left€hand.€€€ð ð[The€appellant]€put€his€arm€around€her€.€.€.like€.€.€.hugging,Íbut€no€.€.€.she€wasnððt€hugging€back.ðð€€From€across€the€street,€Baker€overheard€theÏtwo€discussing€a€ten€dollar€bill€and€observed€that€the€appellant€appeared€to€beÏattempting€to€take€the€brown€paper€bag€away€from€Demetrius.€€Ms.€Cribbs€statedÏthat€ð ðthey€were€not€fighting€or€struggling€in€any€way.ðð€€She€explained€that€itÏappeared€as€if€the€appellant€and€Demetrius€were€hugging,€and,€because€she€knewÏthey€were€friends,€she€did€not€think€anything€about€it.€€€Baker€also€noticed€that€theÏappellant€was€wearing€white,€black,€and€green€Nike€tennis€shoes.€€Both€Baker€andÏCribbs€watched€the€two€walk€toward€the€Dunnavant€Manor€Apartments,€but€neitherÏnoticed€whether€they€ever€entered€an€apartment.ÌÌà àWhen€several€hours€had€passed€and€Demetrius€had€not€returned€toÏWilliamsðð€apartment,€Williams€and€Herron€began€to€look€for€her.€€A€neighbor€toldÏWilliams€that€Demetrius€and€the€appellant€had€walked€toward€the€woods€behindÏthe€apartment€complex.€€Williams€and€Herron€went€to€the€back€of€the€apartmentÏbuilding€and€began€calling€for€Demetrius,€but€received€no€response.€€Williams€thenÏshouted,€ð ðIf€I€start€shooting€out€there,€somebody€is€gonna€say€something.ðð€€WilliamsÏand€Herron€then€heard€what€they€thought€to€be€someone€running€through€theÏwoods.€€Because€it€was€dark,€the€two€men€decided€not€to€go€into€the€woods€andÏreturned€to€Williamsðð€apartment.€€ÌÌà àThe€next€morning,€between€7:30€and€8:30€a.m.,€Jerry€Herron€and€OrangeÏWilliams€renewed€their€search€for€Demetrius€when€they€realized€that€she€had€neverÍreturned€from€Samððs€Club.€€The€two€men€found€the€lifeless€body€of€DemetriusÏMoten€in€the€woods€behind€the€Dunnavant€Manor€Apartments.€€€The€MemphisÏPolice€Department€was€then€notified.€€ÌÌà àOfficer€Sheryl€Stanback€was€the€first€officer€to€arrive€at€the€scene.€€OfficerÏStanback,€who€was€later€joined€by€Sergeant€Richard€Roleson,€proceeded€toÏsecure€the€crime€scene€and€interviewed€available€witnesses.€€Although€there€wereÏno€eyewitnesses€to€the€apparent€homicide,€the€information€provided€by€theÏwitnesses€placed€the€appellant€as€the€last€person€seen€with€Demetrius€Moten€theÏprevious€evening.€€Based€upon€this€information,€Memphis€police€officersÏproceeded€to€the€appellantððs€residence.€€ÌÌà àUpon€obtaining€a€consent€to€search€by€the€appellantððs€mother,€AddieÏHenderson,€police€officers€found€a€pair€of€white,€green€and€black€Nike€tennis€shoesÏsoaking€in€a€bucket€of€bleach€and€dishwashing€liquid€in€the€sink.× ƒ- ××  ×€€They€alsoÏdiscovered€a€bloody€sock€in€a€garbage€can.× ƒ. ××  ×€€The€appellant€was€then€transportedÏto€the€homicide€bureau€of€the€Memphis€Police€Department.ÌÌà àAfter€waiving€his€constitutional€rights,€the€appellant€provided€a€statement€toÏthe€police€in€which€he€confessed€to€the€murder€of€Demetrius€Moten.€€In€hisÏconfession,€the€appellant€explained€that€he€had€asked€Demetrius€if€she€wanted€toÏhave€sex€and€she€responded€that€she€did.€€The€two€then€went€into€the€woodsÏbehind€the€Dunnavant€Manor€Apartments.€€€After€engaging€in€sexual€intercourse,Ïthe€appellant€asked€Demetrius€for€a€dollar,€to€which€she€responded,€ð ðAinððt€fixing€toÏgive€you€shit.ðð€€The€appellant€asked€again,€and€this€time,€Demetrius€gave€theÏappellant€what€she€thought€was€a€one€dollar€bill,€but€was€actually€a€ten€dollar€bill.€ÏWhen€she€realized€her€mistake,€Demetrius€asked€the€appellant€to€return€the€tenÏdollar€bill.€€€A€fight€ensued€between€the€two.€€ÌÓÓà8 àThatððs€when€I€took€the€stick€„„€the€first€time€I€hit€her€with€the€stick.€€AndÏafter€I€hit€her€with€the€stick,€I€got€scared,€and€I€didnððt€know€what€to€do.€ÏThat€was€about€all€by€then.€€I€got€scared,€continuously€hitting€her.€€So,Ïwhen€I€heard€this€dude€„„€I€heard€some€guy€holler€ð ðPeaches,ðð€and€IÏran€home.ÌÌÓÓHe€explained€that,€at€the€time€of€the€encounter€with€Demetrius,€he€was€under€theÏinfluence€of€ð ð€[a]€lot€of€alcohol,€just€a€little€weed.ðð€€The€appellant,€at€some€point€laterÏin€the€evening,€purchased€ð ðsome€weedðð€with€the€money€he€took€from€the€victim.€€InÏhis€statement,€the€appellant€also€informed€the€detectives€of€the€location€of€theÏð ðstickðð€used€in€the€murder.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€Subsequent€police€investigation€confirmed€the€locationÍof€the€ð ðstick.ðð× ƒ0 ××  ×ÌÌà àAn€autopsy€was€performed€on€the€victimððs€body€at€11:25€a.m.€on€July€8,Ï1995.€€Despite€information€from€the€police€that€the€victim€had€been€shot,€Dr.€O.C.ÏSmithððs€examination€revealed€no€gunshot€wounds.€€Rather,€he€determined€that€theÏfive€foot€four€inch€eighty„six€pound€victim€had€suffered€ð ðblunt€trauma€to€her€headÏand€neck,ðð€resulting€in€her€death.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€He€explained€that€ÌÓÓà8 àMiss€Moten€had€injuries€over€many€areas€of€her€body.€€The€mostÏsevere€injury€was€limited€to€the€head€and€neck€region.€€It€includedÏmultiple€bruises,€multiple€skin€scrapes€or€abrasions,€multipleÏlacerations€or€skin€tears€to€the€scalp€and€face.€€These€were€fairlyÏextensive€„„€predominately€on€the€right€side€of€the€face€and€scalp.€ÏThey€were€as€a€result€of€blows€ÌÌà8 àapplied€by€a€moving€object€against€the€face.€€This€caused€bruising€ofÏthe€brain€internally.ÌÌÓÓDr.€Smith€testified€that€the€ð ðstickðð€found€at€the€crime€scene€could€have€caused€theÏinjuries€to€the€victimððs€head€and€neck.€€Additionally,€he€stated€that€a€ð ðcrushing€forceððÏwas€applied€to€the€victimððs€chest€wall,€inhibiting€the€victimððs€breathing.€€This€injuryÏcould€not€be€caused€by€a€stick;€but€would€be€consistent€with€someone€kneeling€onÏthe€victimððs€chest.€€He€determined€that€death€occurred€between€5:25€p.m.€andÍ11:25€p.m.€on€July€7,€1995.€€Dr.€Smith€further€testified€that€ð ð[the€victim]€had€a€bloodÏalcohol€level€of€.29€grams€per€deciliter€of€ethyl€alcohol,ðð€ð ða€very€high€level.ðð€€HeÏinterpreted€the€level€to€mean€that€ð ðMiss€Moten€would€have€diminished€capacities€inÏregard€to€her€judgment€and€her€reaction€time.€€She€would€definitely€be€impaired€forÏalmost€all€of€the€major€physical€and€mental€processes€that€a€person€would€have€toÏundertake.ðð€€Dr.€Smith€was€unable€to€either€confirm€or€dispute€the€appellantððsÏstatement€that€he€and€the€victim€had€engaged€in€sexual€intercourse€immediatelyÏpreceding€her€death.€€No€evidence€of€any€defensive€or€offensive€type€of€injuriesÏwere€observed€on€the€victim.€€€€Ìà àÌà àNotwithstanding€the€appellantððs€previous€confession€to€the€police,€at€trial€theÏappellant€denied€ever€making€such€statement.€€In€fact,€his€testimony€at€trial,€offers€aÏcompletely€different€version€of€the€events.€€The€appellant€stated€that€he€first€sawÏDemetrius€around€7:00€p.m.€when€she€informed€him€that€she€was€going€to€SamððsÏClub€to€get€a€sandwich.€€He€accompanied€Demetrius€to€the€club,€but€did€not€enterÏthe€club€with€her.€€Rather,€the€appellant€remained€outside€talking€with€ð ðO.W.ðð€forÏabout€an€hour€and€one„half.€€The€appellant€maintains€that€the€last€time€he€saw€ÏDemetrius€was€when€she€entered€the€club.€€Additionally,€although€their€testimonyÏwas€somewhat€contradictory,€the€appellantððs€mother€and€brother€attempted€toÏestablish€an€alibi€for€the€appellant.€€The€appellantððs€mother€and€brother€recalledÏthat€the€appellant€was€present€in€his€motherððs€house€from€9:00€p.m.€on€the€night€ofÏthe€murder€until€the€next€morning€when€the€police€arrived.ÌÌÌà àBased€upon€this€evidence,€the€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€ofÏpremeditated€first€degree€murder.ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òI.€€Failure€to€Produce€Photographððs€During€Discoveryó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€introduction€of€Ïphotographs€not€disclosed€by€the€State€prior€to€trial.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€Consequently,€he€states€that,Ïdue€to€the€nature€of€the€photographs,€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€discovery€violation.€ÏThe€State€asserts€that€no€discovery€violation€occurred.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that,€although€defense€counsel€timely€requested,Ïpursuant€to€Rule€16,€all€photographs€in€the€possession€of€the€State,€the€prosecutionÏnever€disclosed€the€photographs€prior€to€trial.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€In€response€to€this€allegation,ÍAssistant€District€Attorney€Henderson€stated€that€defense€counsel€ÌÓÓà8 àwas€set€to€receive€discovery€in€my€office€on€September€the€5th,€1996.€Ï[Defense€counsel]€did€not€show€up.€€We€got€in€further€contact€„„€hadÏanother€date€several€weeks€later.€€[Defense€counsel]€did€not€show€up,Ïbut€she€sent€her,€at€that€time,€law€clerk.€€And€he€received€theÏdiscovery€from€me.Ì€ÌThe€prosecutor,€in€arguing€the€Stateððs€position,€explained:ÌÌà8 àYour€Honor,€thereððs€no€duty€for€me€to€produce€this€photograph.€€ThisÏis€not€discoverable.€€She€can€go€to€the€photo€lab€and€get€thisÏphotograph€just€like€I€can.€€Thereððs€no€duty€to€do€that.€€And€she€canððtÏshow€me€where€there€is.€€We€have€never€done€that€in€any€trial€due€toÏphotographs,€you€know,€ahead€of€time.€€We€just€say,€ð ðOkay,€there€areÏphotographs.€€Now,€if€you€want€to€go€there€and€get€them€producedÏfine.ðð€€But€thereððs€no€duty€to€produce€photographs.ÌÌà8 àSometimes€we€have€hundreds€of€photographs,€and€thatððs€why€„„€andÏYour€Honor,€Iððm€sure,€has€been€in€trial€where€we€show€a€photographÏto€an€attorney€in€a€trial,€and€sometimes€weððll€come€up€to€the€benchÏand€argue€about€the€photograph.€€But€what€we€do€is€we€just€let€theÏattorney€know€that€thereððs€photographs.ÌÌà8 àThis€is€not€discoverable€„„€the€photograph.€€The€only€thing€of€it€is,€isÏthat€you€just€let€them€know€that€there€are€photographs.€€But€theÏphotograph€itself,€no,€because€we€have€no€duty€to€develop€theÏphotograph.€€We€may€never€develop€the€photograph,€or€we€may.€€But,ÏI€mean,€she€can€also€go€up€to€the€photo€lab€and€do€it.ÌÌà8 àà à€ÌÓÓà àAfter€hearing€argument€of€counsel,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€Rule€16Ïdoes€not€specifically€require€that€the€photographs€be€given€to€the€defendant€as€partÍof€discovery.€€The€trial€courtððs€ruling€does€little€to€resolve€the€issue€before€us.€ÏClearly,€the€Rule€does€direct€the€State€to€permit€inspection€and€copying€of€anyÏphotographs€intended€to€be€used€in€the€Stateððs€case„in„chief€or€useful€to€theÏdevelopment€of€a€defense.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€However,€the€issue€remains€whether€the€StateÏviolated€the€discovery€rules€by€only€providing€notification€of€the€photographs.€€ÌÌà àInitially,€we€find€that€the€appellant€has€waived€this€issue€for€failure€to€raiseÏthe€issue€prior€to€trial.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(4).€€Arrangements€were€madeÏby€which€defense€counsel€was€permitted€complete€access€to€the€Stateððs€file.€€Thus,Ïevery€discoverable€item€was€available€for€inspection.€€General€Henderson€statedÏthat,€although€the€photographs€were€not€developed,€notification€of€the€existence€ofÏthe€photographs€was€contained€in€the€file.€€Upon€examining€the€property€receiptsÏfor€the€photographs€contained€in€the€discovery€file,€defense€counsel€did€not€initiateÏfurther€inquiry€as€to€the€nature€of€the€photographs€nor€did€counsel€further€pursueÏacquiring€or€inspecting€the€actual€photographs.€€The€State€is€not€obliged€toÏdetermine€whether€defense€counsel€is€aware€of€each€and€every€item€in€the€file.€ÍThat€is€the€function€of€defense€counsel€to€whom€the€file€is€opened.€€Failure€toÏcomplain€of€the€alleged€discovery€violation€and€to€seek€a€remedy€as€soon€as€theÏdefense€learns€of€it€may€be€treated€as€waiver.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€òòSeeóó€€òòBolton€v.€Stateóó,€617€S.W.2dÏ909€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980);€€òòState€v.€Renneróó,€No.€03C01„9302„CR„00034€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Sept.€12,€1994),€òòaffððd€byóó,€€912€S.W.2d€701€(Tenn.€1995).€ÌÌà àNotwithstanding€the€appellantððs€waiver€of€this€issue,€and€assuming,Ïòòarguendoóó,€that€a€discovery€violation€did€occur,€the€trial€court€did€grant€the€appellantÏa€recess€after€opening€statements€during€which€to€review€the€challengedÏphotographs.€€The€appellant€complains€that€the€appropriate€remedy€is€exclusion€ofÏthe€photographs€from€evidence.€€Initially,€we€note€that€prohibiting€the€introduction€ofÏevidence€is€not€the€exclusive€means€to€remedy€a€discovery€violation.€€The€trial€courtÏhas€the€discretion€to€permit€inspection€of€the€photographs€or€decide€whateverÏremedy€is€just€under€the€circumstances.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(d)(2).€€òòSee€alsoóó€ÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€926€S.W.2d€267,€270€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Whether€anÏexclusionary€sanction€is€appropriate€depends€upon€whether€the€defendant€hasÏactually€been€prejudiced€in€the€development€and€presentation€of€his€case€by€theÏprosecutionððs€failure€to€make€a€proper€and€timely€disclosure€of€the€evidence€inÏquestion€and€whether€that€prejudice€cannot€be€otherwise€eradicated€by€aÍcontinuance€or€means€other€than€suppression.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Garlandóó,€617€S.W.2dÏ176,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€€1981).€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€introduction€of€the€photographs€was€extremelyÏprejudicial€as€there€were€€ð ðnumerous€gory€photographs€of€the€decedent€victim,€andÏguns€and€other€evidence€obtained€at€Defendantððs€home.ðð€€The€appellant€isÏmistaken€as€to€the€standard€for€determining€prejudice.€€The€inquiry€is€whatÏprejudice€has€resulted€from€the€discovery€violation,€not€simply€the€prejudicial€effectÏthe€evidence,€otherwise€admissible,€has€on€the€issue€of€a€defendantððs€guilt.€€òòStateÏv.€Mitchellóó,€No.€02C01„9702„CC„00070€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Sept.€15,Ï1997)€(citing€òòState€v.€Cottrellóó,€868€S.W.2d€673,€677€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);ÏòòGarlandóó,€617€S.W.2d€at€186).€€This€court€will€not€presume€prejudice€from€a€mereÏallegation.€€Moreover,€prejudice€arising€from€a€discovery€violation€will€not€be€foundÏif€it€is€shown€that€the€defense€was€otherwise€aware€of€the€undisclosed€evidence.ÏThe€appellant€cannot€dispute€that€defense€counsel€reasonably€should€have€knownÏthat€the€photographs€did€exist.€€In€fact,€defense€counsel€filed€a€motion€to€excludeÏphotographs€of€the€victim,€which€necessarily€included€some€of€the€challengedÏphotographsòò€óóon€October€16,€1996,€approximately€one€month€prior€to€trial.€€TheÏappellant€has€failed€to€establish€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€Stateððs€failure€toÏtimely€disclose€the€actual€photographic€prints.€€Thus,€considering€that€defenseÏcounsel€was€provided€adequate€time€to€examine€the€photographs€before€theÏStateððs€case„in„chief,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÍdiscretion€by€denying€the€appellantððs€request€that€the€photographs€be€excluded.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà à€€Ìà@ àò òII.€€Motion€to€Suppressó óÌÌà àA€€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress€the€appellantððs€statement€to€the€policeÏwas€held€on€November€12,€1996,€which€was€the€first€day€of€the€appellantððsÏscheduled€trial.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€€The€appellant€testified€that€he€was€asleep€on€the€couch€at€hisÏmotherððs€house€when€police€officers€entered€the€home€and€took€him€into€custody.€ÏHe€stated€that€he€was€not€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€during€this€initial€encounter.€ÏThe€appellant€was€then€transported€to€the€jail€and€questioned€about€the€murder,Ïbut€again,€was€not€advised€of€his€rights.€€He€testified€that€one€detective€madeÏrepeated€attempts€to€persuade€him€to€sign€some€papers;€implying€that€ð ðit€would€beÏeasierðð€if€he€signed€the€papers.€€The€detectives€also€informed€the€appellant€that€heÍwould€not€be€able€to€telephone€his€mother€until€he€signed€the€papers.€€TheÏappellant€testified€that,€over€a€two€and€one„half€hour€period,€the€detective€madeÏracial€comments,€ð ðgrabbed€him€around€his€throat,ðð€ð ðspit€in€his€hand,ðð€and€ð ðreally€justÏterrorized€me.ðð€€He€also€recalled€one€detective€telling€another€that€ð ðsince€[theÏappellant]€knew€[his]€rights,€there€wasnððt€no€sense€of€just€telling€me.ðð€€The€appellantÏagain€was€refused€permission€to€telephone€his€mother.€€He€stated€that€he€wasÏdisturbed,€upset€and€scared.€€Despite€the€fact€that€the€detectives€subsequentlyÏobtained€a€written€waiver€of€rights€and€a€transcribed€statement€by€the€appellant,€theÏappellant€maintains€that€he€was€not€advised€of€his€rights€and€that€the€answersÏprovided€on€the€statement€were€not€his€own.€€The€appellant€conceded€that€this€wasÏnot€the€first€time€he€had€ever€been€arrested.ÌÌà àDetective€John€Botting€testified€that,€on€July€8,€1995,€the€appellant€wasÏbrought€to€his€office€and,€after€being€formally€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,Ïexecuted€a€written€waiver€acknowledging€that€he€understood€his€rights.€€BottingÏexplained€that€the€appellant€was€interrogated€in€an€interview€room€and€then€wasÏmoved€to€the€transcriptionistððs€office€when€he€was€ready€to€give€a€typed€statement.€ÏBotting€described€the€transcriptionistððs€office€as€being€a€small€office€with€aÏcomputer€screen.€€In€describing€the€standard€interview€procedure,€BottingÏexplained€that€the€subject€sits€down€facing€the€computer€screen€while€theÏinterrogating€officers€stand€beside€the€subject.€€An€officer€asks€a€question,€and€theÏtranscriptionist€types€the€question€and€then€types€the€answer€as€given.€€BottingÍrefuted€the€appellantððs€claims€of€coercion€and€further€testified€that€at€no€time€duringÏð ðcustodial€interrogationðð€did€the€appellant€indicate€any€concern€or€distress.€ÏAdditionally,€he€denies€that€any€racial€comments€were€made€and€stated€that€theÏappellant€never€asked€to€call€his€mother€until€after€he€had€given€his€statement.€€TheÏappellantððs€initial€interview€commenced€at€11:45€a.m.€and€concluded€sometimeÏbefore€12:37€p.m.€€The€typed€interview€began€at€12:37€p.m.€and€was€completed€byÏ1:00€p.m.€Elise€Flowers,€a€civilian€transcriptionist€for€the€Memphis€PoliceÏDepartment,€confirmed€the€interview€procedure€and€stated€that€she€did€not€observeÏany€evidence€of€coercion€during€the€custodial€interview.ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€determined€that,€ð ðbased€onÏthe€evidence€and€the€statements€that€have€been€given€in€this€proceeding,ðð€theÏappellant€voluntarily€waived€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€and€gave€a€statement€to€theÏdetectives€absent€government€coercion.€€The€appellant€contests€this€ruling.ÌÌà àThe€trial€courtððs€determination€that€a€confession€has€been€given€voluntarilyÏand€without€coercion€is€binding€upon€the€appellate€court€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€ruling.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€22€(Tenn.Ï1996);€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544€(Tenn.€1994).€€Under€thisÍstandard,€matters€regarding€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€beÏafforded€the€evidence,€and€resolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€mattersÏentrusted€to€the€trial€court€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€23.€€On€appeal,Ïthe€appellant€bears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Tateóó,€No.€02C01„9605„CR„00164Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Dec.€3,€1997)€(citation€omitted).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€obviously€accredited€the€testimony€of€Detective€Botting€andÏElise€Flowers€in€finding€a€valid€and€knowing€waiver€of€rights.€€Their€testimony€isÏsupported€by€both€the€signed€waiver€of€rights€form€and€the€appellantððs€subsequentÏsigned€statement.€€Considering€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€òòseeóó€€òòStephensonóó,Ï878€S.W.2d€at€545,€the€evidence€shows€that€the€appellant€was€properly€advised€ofÏhis€rights,€had€the€capacity€to€understand€those€rights,€and€the€statement€was€notÏthe€product€of€coercion.€€€òòBerkemer€v.€McCartyóó,€468€U.S.€420,€434,€104€S.Ct.€3138,Ï3147€(1984);€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€444,€86€S.Ct.€1602,€1612€(1966);ÏòòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€216€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.€dismissedóó,€510ÏU.S.€124,€114€S.Ct.€651€(1993).€€After€a€review€of€the€evidence€presented€at€theÏsuppression€hearing,€we€conclude€that€the€appellant€has€failed€to€meet€his€burdenÏof€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding.€ÏThus,€the€motion€was€properly€denied.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€Sufficiency€of€Evidenceó óÌÌà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trialÏwas€insufficient€to€enable€a€rational€juror€to€find€him€guilty€of€premeditated€firstÏdegree€murder.€€Specifically,€he€asserts€that€there€is€no€evidence€to€show€planningÏor€a€previous€formed€design€or€intent€to€kill.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€He€argues€that,€at€best,€the€evidenceÏsupports€a€charge€of€voluntary€manslaughter.€€The€State€contends€that€the€numberÏof€blows€inflicted€upon€the€victim,€the€absence€of€defensive€and€offensive€woundsÏon€the€victim,€and€the€appellantððs€confession€establish€that€the€appellant€ð ðlured€theÏvictim€into€the€woods€with€the€preconceived€intention€to€kill€her€for€ten€dollars.ðð€ÌÌà àA€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€aÏdefendant€is€initially€cloaked€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€on€appeal€aÏconvicted€defendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€isÏinsufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€It€is€the€appellateÏcourt's€duty€to€affirm€the€conviction€if€the€evidence€viewed€under€these€standardsÏwas€sufficient€for€any€rational€trier€of€fact€to€have€found€the€essential€elements€ofÏthe€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€317,€99ÏS.Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€„„€U.S.€„„,€115€S.Ct.€743€(1995);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€€On€appeal,€theÍState€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€legitimate€orÏreasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2dÏ54,€75€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€507€U.S.€954,€113€S.Ct.€1368€(1993).ÌÌà àOnce€a€homicide€is€established€it€is€presumed€to€be€second€degree€murder.€ÏòòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€543€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€State,€then,€has€theÏburden€of€proving€the€element€of€premeditation€to€elevate€the€offense€to€first€degreeÏmurder.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€òòIdóó.€€Premeditation€necessitates€ð ðthe€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment,ððÏrequiring€a€ð ðpreviously€formed€design€or€intent€to€kill.ðð€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2dÏ144,€147€(Tenn.€1992).ÌÌà àThe€element€of€premeditation€is€a€question€for€the€jury€and€may€be€inferredÏfrom€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€killing.€€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,3Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994).€€Because€the€trierÏof€fact€cannot€speculate€as€to€what€was€in€the€killerððs€mind,€the€existence€of€facts€ofÏpremeditation€must€be€determined€from€the€appellantððs€conduct€in€light€of€theÏsurrounding€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€No.€01C01„9503„CC„00093€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Jan.€5,€1996).€€€Although€there€is€no€strict€standardÏgoverning€what€constitutes€proof€of€premeditation,€several€relevant€circumstancesÍare€helpful,€including:€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€an€unarmed€victim;€the€factÏthat€the€killing€was€particularly€cruel;€declarations€by€the€defendant€of€his€intent€toÏkill;€and€the€making€of€preparations€before€the€killing€for€the€purpose€of€concealingÏthe€crime.€€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€660€(Tenn.€1997)€(citing€òòBrownóó,€836ÏS.W.2d€at€541„542).€€Additional€factors€from€which€a€jury€may€infer€premeditationÏinclude€planning€activities€by€the€appellant€prior€to€the€killing,€the€appellantððs€priorÏrelationship€with€the€victim,€and€the€nature€of€the€killing.€€òòGentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€at€4„5Ï(citation€omitted).ÌÌà àThe€State€concedes€that€ð ð[t]he€fact€that€repeated€blows€were€inflicted€on€theÏvictim€is€not€sufficient,€by€itself,€to€establish€first€degree€murder.ðð€€òòBrownóó,€836ÏS.W.2d€at€542;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Darnellóó,€905€S.W.2d€953,€962€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995).€€ð ðRepeated€blows€can€be€delivered€in€the€heat€of€passion,€with€no€design€orÏreflection.ðð€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€542.€€Nonetheless,€the€State€argues€that€theÏrepeated€blows€inflicted€on€the€victim€coupled€with€his€confession€to€police€supportÏa€finding€of€premeditation.€€We€disagree.€€ÌÌà àThe€proof€established€that€the€appellant€and€the€victim€were€life„long€familyÏfriends.€€Witnesses€testified€that,€immediately€prior€to€the€incident,€the€victim€walkedÏwith€the€appellant€toward€the€Dunnavant€Manor€Apartments.€No€hostility€betweenÏthe€two€was€observed.€Ms.€Moten€made€no€attempt€to€flee€nor€did€she€call€for€helpÏas€the€pair€walked€toward€the€wooded€area.€€The€appellant€was€unarmed€at€theÍtime€the€couple€entered€the€woods.€The€appellantððs€confession€reveals€that,€afterÏengaging€in€consensual€sexual€intercourse,€the€appellant€and€the€victim€began€toÏargue€over€a€ten€dollar€bill.€€The€appellant€hit€the€eighty„six€pound€victim€with€aÏstick,€striking€her€approximately€ten€times.€€Both€the€appellant€and€the€victim€wereÏhighly€intoxicated€at€the€time€of€the€incident.€€€Although€it€was€the€Stateððs€position€atÏtrial€that€the€appellant€lured€the€victim€into€the€woods€for€the€purpose€of€killing€herÏfor€ten€dollars,€there€is€simply€no€proof€to€support€this€theory,€and€it€remains€justÏthat,€a€theory.× ƒ: ××  ×€€€Based€upon€these€facts,€we€conclude€that€there€is€insufficientÏevidence€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€blows€to€the€victim€were€a€ð ðpreviouslyÏformed€designðð€and€were€inflicted€in€ð ðthe€ÌÌÌexercise€of€reflection€and€judgment.ðð€€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€147.€€Absent€theÏelement€of€premeditation,€the€appellantððs€conviction€for€first€degree€murder€cannotÏstand.ÌÌà àNotwithstanding€this€conclusion,€again,€a€homicide€is€presumed€to€beÏsecond€degree€murder.€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€543.€€Second€degree€murder€is€ð ðaÏknowing€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210(a)(1)€(1995€Supp.).€ÍUnder€the€facts€of€this€case,€we€find€that€the€proof€establishes€that€the€appellantÏacted€ð ðknowinglyðð€with€an€awareness€that€his€repeated€and€forceful€blows€to€theÏhead€and€body€of€the€victim€were€reasonably€certain€to€produce€death.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(20)€(1995€Supp.).€€We€conclude€that€there€is€evidence€toÏsupport€ð ðknowingðð€conduct,€and,€therefore,€a€conviction€for€second€degree€murder.ÌÌÌà@ àò òConclusionó óÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€above,€we€reverse€the€appellantððs€conviction€andÏvacate€the€accompanying€sentence€for€first€degree€murder.€€The€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court€is€modified€to€reflect€a€conviction€of€murder€in€the€second€degree.€€ThisÏcause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€entry€of€a€judgment€of€conviction€inÏaccordance€with€this€opinion€and€for€re„sentencing€consistent€with€the€principles€ofÏsentencing.ÌÇÌÌÌÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€Judgeà à€€€€€