ÿWPCá ¢çäz#b™7¼ÒS±¾Œq{mûîú(ž´-Ëè);¯÷¦[ºÁ3|©±" ‹ ^_ÒEëP}©˜èë‹Ö|xÚÁÇç&ÇÆÆW üå» a8»ØÐËËòe1µ|¯Ï:ú·!"þ,ÑËŸÊÿë1 ÞœÛm6äL 9¾[ô1‘EæÚ5L~¡4âI”Ö‘€??·pÄ,2]v5­úÂÇÿð3Ù7µ,§ÊHõr× ª¦ êQG—"SŠ7+%6jÃÏŸš½-‡ƒ|Õ‘º%Qæv9—ïÿ€ŒvièüÂûT³—NHâ—ê¨ÃÀÖÉ«d$MÑ;zWD±4[çên|‚Iâá¶luìí!‘–Õî(:Ò«½ºBZnèrŸ‘bW¶î^Lï ±•~M×Ï)q~‡Éüýj<ø=;YÚüò’çQšAd95N œòÖ)vÄm÷«Ä<»ç¥Â’Ä~ ÞK7ƒ3kK¨,V>{Ræþ•a¸¨Å׿]–À’n¥;ìÓgëL*þgawÇË)'ÇvZÇÜ×ÿ‹R¼Ç0N2¡"œìk*®Ô“£J'ò=éU3U38~ãpæ].›õÉúá«‚¶YÊ]'œ?ÇÍÓ<û¡¤Þ8# UN %i 0(oU:—w:Ñ4 .6y> 0l· 0D# U:g q¡ $ D36 U:i $£ U:Ç$U:%%%%%%%%%%% 0D_ B££££ AQÀÆ 0D× 0D D/_ BŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽ 06«˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÜÏ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular ß[àDáâEãäÓ€ðeòr‚óø‚&d Ô €Ôô3|xõ oÒ°ÒÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àÔ€XHåXXXÔThe€jury€was€composed€of€Hamblen€County€residents€although€theÐ ° Ðtrial€was€conducted€in€Sullivan€County.€€The€trial€court€ordered€the€HamblenÏCounty€jury€selection€in€response€to€the€defendantððs€motion€for€change€of€venue.((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular gÒ°ÒÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àÔ‡Xž&XXXÔFor€all€trials€occurring€after€May€18,€1998,€ð ðthe€judge€shall€òònotóóÐ ° Ðinstruct€the€jury,€nor€shall€the€attorneys€be€permitted€to€comment€at€any€time€toÏthe€jury,€on€possible€penalties€for€the€offense€charged€nor€all€lesser€includedÏoffenses.ðð€€1998€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€ch.€1041,€ðð€2,€(amending€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„201(b))€(emphasis€added).€€The€trial€€in€the€present€case€occurred€MayÐ pÀ ÿ Ð12„14,€1997.€Ô#†Xn„XXXž&]#Ô Ý ƒ(¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XHåXXXÔÔ€:pXXHåÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XHåX:pÔÐ  ÐÌò òMay€20,€1999Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôõ¡ôXXHåÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó""""'ÿÿdxd,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ(¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XHåXXXÔÔ€:pXXHåÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XHåX:pÔÐ  ÐÌò òMay€20,€1999Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôõ¡ôXXHåÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ(¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XHåXXXÔÔ€:pXXHåÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XHåX:pÔÐ  ÐÌò òMay€17,€1999Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôõ¡ôXXHåÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d'(!)*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd&‡¦$"ð"ðà0  àÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñðñ›ñðññðññÞñ›ñÞññðññðññðñÔ€XHåXXXÔÒ°ÒÓ  Óò òÓÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€õFXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  Ññðññäñœñäññðññäññðñœñðññóññðñßr€&<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` ttx$°ð Õrßñðññóññäññóñßr€&<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` ttx$°ð Õrßñóññäññðñßr€&<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` ttx$°ð Õrßñðñ›ñäñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€KNOXVILLEó óñòñœñòñÐ ˆØ Ðò òDECEMBER€1998€SESSIONó óÐ `° ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà h àà À àà  à)Ð Ð  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,à h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9712„CR„00526ó óÐ ¢ò  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìvs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òSullivan€Countyó óÐ tÄ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òHARRY€DAVID€JOHNSON,ó óà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òHonorable€€R.€Jerry€Beckó óÐ F– Ðò òà ` àà ¸ àó óà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð 2‚ Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€(First€Degree€Murder)Ð h Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€FOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð Ê ÐÌROBERT€C.€NEWTONà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€JOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ –æ Ð900€Anderson€Streetà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Attorney€General€&€ReporterÐ |Ì ÐBristol,€TN€37620à  àà h àà À àÐ b² Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ELIZABETH€B.€MARNEYÌPAUL€R.€WOHLFORDà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Assistant€Attorney€Generalà Ð àÐ .~ Ð900€Anderson€Streetà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÐ d ÐBristol,€TN€37620à  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€2d€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€Bldg.Ð úJ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Nashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌGARY€E.€BREWERà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð Æ  ÐP.O.€Box€2046à  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€TERESA€M.€SMITHÐ ¬!ü  ÐMorristown,€TN€37816„2046à À àà  à€€€€€€€JOSEPH€EUGENE€PERRINÐ ’"â! Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Asst.€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€P.O.€Box€526Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Blountville,€TN€37617€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_____________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÐ  0\+0 ÐÌÌÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ ;l6<F ÐÓ  ÓÓÓOPINIONÌÌÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àó óThe€defendant,€Harry€David€Johnson,€appeals€his€conviction€in€theÐ `° ÐSullivan€County€Criminal€Court€where€a€jury׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€found€him€guilty€of€the€first€degreeÐ , | Ðmurder€of€his€wife,€Katherine€Trotter€Johnson.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€toÏincarceration€for€life.€€In€this€appeal,€the€defendant€raises€the€following€issues:€€ÌÒ°Òà ` àà ¸ à1.€€the€evidence€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€is€insufficientÏà ` àto€support€the€verdict€of€first€degree€murder;ò òà È àà  àÐ \¬  Ðà ` àó óà ¸ à2.€€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€state€to€cross„examine€Ð (x Ðà ` àdefense€witnesses€about€the€defendantððs€prior€violent€acts€against€the€Ìà ` àvictim;ò òà  àÐ À Ðà ` àà ¸ àó ó3.€€the€trial€court€erred€in€instructing€the€jury€about€the€range€of€Ð ŒÜ Ðà ` àpunishment€for€the€various€degrees€of€homicide;€andÌà ` àà ¸ à4.€€the€trial€court€failed€to€give€the€jury€a€special€instruction€¼à ` àconcerning€the€meaning€of€ð ðpassion.ðð€ÌÒ°ÒUpon€oral€argument€and€our€review€of€the€briefs,€the€record,€and€the€law,€we€affirmÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€ò òÐ ˆ!Ø  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àó óThe€defendant€and€the€victim€lived€in€an€A„frame€residence€in€a€lakeÐ ,%| $ Ðcommunity€on€Friendship€Road€in€Sullivan€County.€€The€defendant€is€a€pharmacist.€ÏThe€couple€had€two€daughters,€Whitney€Johnson€and€Arin€Bence€Johnson,€agesÏ20€and€22,€respectively,€at€the€time€of€trial.€€By€all€accounts€in€the€proof,€the€victimÏsuffered€from€chronic€alcoholism€and€was€given€to€bouts€of€intoxication€despiteÏseveral€efforts€to€control€her€disease€through€rehabilitation.€€She€was€extremelyÏintoxicated€at€the€time€of€her€death.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àArin€Johnson€testified€for€the€defense€that€on€June€21,€1995,€theÏdefendant€came€home€and€had€some€words€with€the€victim€in€the€kitchen,€which€isÐ X5¨06 Ðlocated€on€the€middle€floor€of€the€three„level€home.€€The€defendant€then€went€to€theÏlower€level€and€began€folding€blankets€where€he€had€been€sleeping€since€ð ðassaultÏchargesðð€were€filed.€€Arin€Johnson€testified€the€defendant€did€not€look€like€himself.€ÏHis€eyes€looked€ð ðblack,ðð€and€he€seemed€sad,€cold,€distant,€and€depressed.€€His€chinÏquivered.€€She€had€never€seen€him€in€that€condition€before.€€However,€when€she€leftÏto€return€to€afternoon€classes,€the€household€was€calm€and€there€was€no€reason€forÏalarm.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àLater€in€the€afternoon€of€June€21,€Whitney€Johnson€went€to€theÏresidence€of€her€boyfriend,€Bradley€Jason€Fields,€and€called€home€to€tell€her€fatherÏthat€she€was€going€to€a€meeting.€€She€became€upset€when€the€defendant€hung€upÏon€her.€€Because€she€was€worried,€she€asked€Fieldsððs€mother€and€sister€to€drive€herÏhome.€€When€she€arrived€at€the€Johnson€residence€a€half€hour€later,€she€found€aÏnote€affixed€to€the€door€of€the€house,€although€she€did€not€read€it€at€that€time.€€SheÏwas€concerned€about€the€welfare€of€the€defendant,€went€to€look€for€him,€and€foundÏhim€at€the€rear€of€the€house€seated€in€a€swing€with€a€shotgun€propped€up€againstÏa€tree€nearby.€€She€testified€the€defendant€ð ðwasnððt€the€person€that€I€knew.ðð€€TheÏdefendant€told€her€that€had€she€not€called€earlier,€she€would€have€found€him€dead.€ÏThey€sat€in€the€swing€and€talked€for€about€30€minutes.€€Bradley€Jason€Fields€arrivedÏand€entered€the€Johnson€home.€€Whitney€Johnson€joined€him€in€the€kitchen,€andÏthey€began€to€make€some€tea.€€When€they€discovered€they€were€out€of€sugar,€theÏdefendant€drove€to€a€store€to€buy€sugar.€€When€he€returned,€Whitney€JohnsonÏmade€tea,€and€she€and€Fields€went€to€her€bedroom€to€watch€television.€€TheÏdefendant€was€in€the€lower€level€of€the€house.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àSometime€later€the€defendant€went€from€the€lower€level€to€the€thirdÏfloor€where€the€victimððs€bedroom€was€located.€€Whitney€Johnson€heard€ð ða€thunkððÏand€went€upstairs€to€see€what€happened.€€The€victim€was€sitting€on€the€bedroomÐ 09€48 Ðfloor,€and€the€defendant€was€sitting€on€the€edge€of€the€bed.€€The€victim€wasÏð ðsnarlingðð€at€the€defendant€who€had€the€ð ðlook€of€a€black€hole€type€person.ðð€€TheÏdefendant€became€enraged.€€He€ð ðsmackedðð€the€victim€and€said€he€was€going€toÏshoot€her.€€He€left€the€room€very€quickly€and€went€downstairs.€€As€he€came€backÏvery€quickly€from€the€lower€level€with€the€shotgun,€Whitney€Johnson€met€him€andÏtried€to€get€the€gun€away€from€him.€€She€testified€the€defendant€was€ð ðscreaming,€outÏof€control.ðð€€He€loaded€the€gun€and€ran€upstairs€to€the€third„floor€bedroom€where€theÏvictim€had€remained.€€Whitney€Johnson€testified€that€only€seconds€elapsed€betweenÏthe€defendant€running€upstairs€and€the€firing€of€a€shot.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àBradley€Jason€Fields,€who€testified€for€the€state,€gave€a€somewhatÏdifferent€account€of€the€June€21€events.€€He€stated€that€the€victim€was€intoxicatedÏand,€in€his€opinion,€could€not€walk.€€He€testified€that€after€the€defendant€returnedÏfrom€his€errand€in€his€car,€the€defendant€played€with€the€family€dogs€for€severalÏminutes€and€seemed€calm.€€However,€later€the€defendant€went€upstairs€and€Ïthreatened€to€kill€the€victim.€€The€defendant€come€down€the€stairs,€passed€Fields€inÏthe€kitchen€area,€and€proceeded€to€the€lower€level€to€the€gun€cabinet.€€FieldsÏfollowed€him€down€the€stairs,€and€the€defendant€said,€ð ðI€was€going€to€kill€that€bitch.ðð€ÏThe€defendant€obtained€the€shotgun€and€the€box€of€shells€and€rambled€about€theÏvictim€not€getting€his€money€and€that€he€was€going€to€kill€her.€€Fields€tried€to€stopÏhim,€and€the€defendant€ordered€Fields€out€of€the€way.€€Frightened,€Fields€steppedÏback,€allowing€the€defendant€to€go€upstairs.€€Fields€went€to€the€second€floor€andÏwatched€and€heard€the€confrontation€from€the€kitchen„great€room€area.€TheÏbedroom€opened€onto€a€balcony€which€was€visible€through€an€atrium€from€theÏsecond„floor€kitchen„great€room€area.€€Fields€testified€that€the€defendant€pulled€theÏvictim€off€the€bed€onto€the€floor,€pointed€the€gun€at€her,€and€told€her€he€was€goingÏto€kill€her.€€The€defendant€told€the€victim€she€was€not€going€to€get€his€money€andÏthat€he€was€tired€of€living€the€way€he€had€been.€€Fields€pleaded€with€him€not€to€killÏthe€victim.€€He€described€the€defendant€looking€at€him€and€saying€that€he€had€to€doÐ 09€48 Ðwhat€he€had€to€do.€€During€this€time,€the€victim€was€hollering€Fieldsððs€name.€€ThisÏsituation€continued€for€about€five€minutes€before€the€defendant€fired€the€fatal€shotÏand€came€running€downstairs.€€When€the€defendant€reached€the€kitchen€level,€heÏbegan€looking€for€the€shells€which€Fields€had€hidden€under€a€pillow.€€The€defendantÏstated€ð ðI€killed€her,ðð€laid€the€gun€on€a€couch€on€the€lower€level,€and€left€the€house.€ÏÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFields€went€upstairs€and€discovered€the€victim€had€been€shot€in€theÏhead.€€The€defendant€drove€off€in€his€automobile€but€returned€to€the€home€a€fewÏminutes€later€at€the€same€time€the€first€law€enforcement€officer€arrived.€€This€officerÏarrested€the€defendant€and€described€the€defendant€as€merely€standing€in€theÏdriveway,€not€crying€or€shaking.€€The€officer,€whose€weapon€was€drawn,€three€timesÏordered€the€defendant€to€raise€his€hands€before€the€defendant€complied.€€TheÏdefendant€spoke€only€to€ask€the€officer€if€the€officer€knew€who€he€was.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€note€which€Whitney€Johnson€initially€saw€affixed€to€the€door€wasÏintroduced€into€evidence.€€It€was€addressed€to€ð ðWhit€and€Arinðð€and€was€signed€offÏby€ð ðDad.ðð€€It€expressed€ð ðfrustrations€of€life€in€generalðð€and€stated€that€ð ðI€canððt€fixÏthings€that€are€ñÞñœñÞñunfixableñÞñ›ñÞñ.€€I€love€you€both,€but€if€there€is€a€basement€in€hell,€I€canÏassure€you€that€your€mother€will€be€firing€the€furnace!!ðð€€The€note€concluded,€ð ðIÏreally€havenððt€planned€for€this€but€.€.€.€things€will€work€out.ððÌÌà ` àà ¸ àDuring€Arin€Johnsonððs€direct€testimony€as€a€defense€witness,€sheÏmentioned€that€her€father€had€been€sleeping€on€the€lower€floor€ð ðsince€the€assaultÏcharge.ðð€€Before€cross„examination,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€jury„out€hearing€toÏrule€on€the€stateððs€request€to€be€allowed€to€ask€the€witness€about€the€assaultÏcharge.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€stateððs€request,€and€upon€cross„examination,ÏArin€Johnson€testified€that€in€May€1995€the€defendant€had€been€charged€withÏassault€against€the€victim.€€She€testified€that€the€defendant€returned€from€jail,Ð 09€48 Ðapologized€to€the€family,€told€them€it€would€not€happen€again,€and€then€told€Arin€thatÏhe€would€kill€her€mother€before€he€would€go€back€to€jail.€€Furthermore,€Arin€JohnsonÏtestified€that€her€parents€mutually€drank€and€argued€and€that€sometimes€Arin€hadÏto€physically€intervene.€€The€defendant€continued€to€drink€in€front€of€the€victim€afterÏshe€had€undergone€rehabilitation€programs€and€sometimes€offered€alcoholicÏbeverages€to€the€victim.€€Arin€Johnson€stated€that,€on€the€day€of€her€motherððs€death,Ïshe€had€planned€to€take€her€mother€out€of€the€house€for€her€safety€but€that€theÏvictim€was€in€no€condition€to€leave.€€On€redirect€examination,€Arin€Johnson€said€thatÏthe€defendant€had€stopped€talking€to€the€daughters.€€ð ðIf€mom€was€sober,€thenÏeverything€was€fine,€and€if€it€wasnððt,€nobody€said€anything€to€each€other.ðð€€She€saidÏthat€as€the€victimððs€drinking€got€worse,€the€defendantððs€did€also.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àDuring€Whitney€Johnsonððs€direct€testimony€as€a€defense€witness,€sheÏstated€that€before€the€shooting€the€defendant€was€in€ð ða€rage€that€I€have€never€seenÏbefore€in€my€life.ðð€€Before€the€stateððs€cross„examination,€the€trial€court€held€a€jury„¼out€hearing€to€determine€the€admissibility€of€evidence€of€prior€acts€of€domesticÏviolence€that€were€ð ða€part€of€this€family,ðð€to€show€that€the€defendantððs€rage€prior€toÏthe€shooting€was€not€unprecedented.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€stateððs€request,Ïand€upon€cross„examination€before€the€jury,€Whitney€Johnson€testified€that€she€hadÏpreviously€seen€the€defendant€in€a€similar€rage.€On€that€occasion,€the€defendantÏhad€assaulted€the€victim,€and€Arin€Johnson€had€placed€the€victim€in€Arinððs€car€andÏwas€about€to€drive€her€to€the€hospital.€€The€defendant€attacked€the€car€with€a€sledgeÏhammer€and€broke€out€the€car€windows€with€Arin€and€her€mother€seated€inside.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€trial,€the€defense€conceded€that€the€defendant€shot€and€killed€theÏvictim€but€argued€that€the€defendant€was€incapable€of€premeditation€and/orÏdeliberation.€€The€defendant€did€not€testify.€€The€jury€convicted€him€of€first€degreeÏmurder,€and€because€the€state€had€filed€no€notice€of€intent€to€seek€the€deathÏpenalty,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€life€sentence€without€holding€a€sentencing€hearing.€Ð 09€48 ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidence.Ð pÀ ÐÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àó óIn€the€defendantððs€first€issue,€he€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÐ P   Ðevidence€to€support€findings€of€premeditation€and€deliberation,€necessary€elementsÏof€first€degree€murder.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence,€this€court€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adducedÏat€trial€is€sufficient€ð ðto€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€ofÏguilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€directÏand€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 0€ ÐApp.€1990).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€courtÏdoes€not€re„weigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,Ð °"  Ð779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€thoseÏdrawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.Ð p&À!$ Ð298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€court€is€required€toÏafford€the€state€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€theÏrecord,€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÏfrom€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ð ð-@), ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€andÏvalue€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidenceÏare€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòIdóó.€€In€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2dÐ p5À04 Ð474€(Tenn.€1973),€our€supreme€court€said:€ð ðA€guilty€verdict€by€the€jury,€approved€byÏthe€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State€and€resolvesÐ 09€48 Ðall€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€state.ðð€€ñÞñœñÞñòòñÞñGrACeñÞññÞñGraceñÞñóó,ñÞñ›ñÞñ€493€S.W.2d€at€476.€€Ð ° Ðà ` àà ¸ àÌà ` àà ¸ àBecause€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÏreplaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused,€as€the€appellant,€has€theÏburden€in€this€court€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÏverdicts€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.Ð `  Ð1982).€€This€court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,Ïfor€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€that€the€accused€is€guilty€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòIdóó.€Ð à ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€was€convicted€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€39„13„202(a)(1)€(1991)€(amended€1995)€which€defined€first€degree€murderÏas€an€ð ðintentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing€of€another€.€.€.€.ðð€€In€1995,€theÏlegislature€amended€this€statute€by€deleting€the€requirement€that€the€killing€beÏdeliberate.€€1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€Ch.€460,€ðð€1.€€The€amendment€was€effective€JulyÏ1,€1995,€nine€days€òòafteróó€the€killing€of€the€victim€in€the€present€case.Ð °"  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àA€homicide,€once€established,€is€presumed€to€be€second€degreeÏmurder.€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€543€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€state€then€hasÐ P( #& Ðthe€burden€of€proving€the€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€in€order€toÏelevate€the€homicide€to€first€degree€murder.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð ,`'* ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àA€premeditated€act€is€ð ðone€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€andÏjudgment.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201(b)(2)€(1991)€(amended€1995).€Ïð ðððPremeditation€involves€a€previously€formed€design,€or€actual€òòintentionóó€to€kill.ðððð€Ð 3à.2 ÐòòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€539€ñÞñœñÞñ(quoting€òòLewis€v.€Stateóó,€40€Tenn.€127,€147„48€(1859))Ð p5À04 Ð(italicsñÞñ›ñÞñ€ñÞñœñÞñadded€in€òòBrownóó).ñÞñ›ñÞñ€€It€is€the€ñÞñœñÞñprocessñÞñ›ñÞñ€ñÞñœñÞñððð ðofñÞñ›ñÞñ€thinking€about€a€proposed€killingÐ P7 26 Ðbefore€engaging€in€the€homicidal€conduct.ðððð€òòIdóó.€at€541.€€ð ð[N]o€specific€period€of€timeÐ 09€48 Ðneed€elapse€between€the€defendantððs€formulation€of€the€design€to€kill€and€theÏexecution€of€that€plan€.€.€ñÞñœñÞñ.ð ðñÞñ›ñÞñ€€òòIdóó.€at€543.Ð à ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€pre„1995€statute€also€required€that€ð ðthe€premeditated€killing€mustÏalso€have€been€done€deliberately,€that€is,€with€coolness€and€reflection.ðð€€òòBrownóó,€836Ð 0 € ÐS.W.2d€at€539.€€A€deliberate€act€is€ð ðone€performed€with€a€cool€purpose.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201(b)(1)€(1991)€(amended€1995).€€The€cool€purpose€must€beÏformed€ð ðin€the€absence€of€passion,ðð€or€if€formed€in€passion,€it€must€be€committedÏð ðafter€the€passion€has€subsided.ðð€€òòState€v.€Bullingtonóó,€532€S.W.2d€556,€559€(Tenn.Ð ° Ð1976).€€ð ð[D]eliberation€requires€some€period€of€reflection,€during€which€the€mind€isÏððfree€from€the€influence€of€excitement,€or€passion.ðððð€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€540.€€ItÐ pÀ Ðis€the€process€ñÞñœñÞññßñòòñßñofñÞñ›ñÞñ€weighing€ñÞñœñÞñtheñÞñ›ñÞñ€wisdom€of€ñÞñœñÞñproceedingñÞñ›ñÞñ€with€the€ñÞñœñÞñplan,ñÞñ›ñÞñ€the€manner€ñÞñœñÞñofÏcarrying€outñÞñ›ñÞñ€the€ñÞñœñÞñkilling,ñÞñ›ñÞñ€ñÞñœñÞñandñÞñ›ñÞñ€the€consequences€which€may€ñÞñœñÞñresultñßñòòñßñ.ñÞñ›ñÞñ€€òòóóIdóó.€at€ñÞñœñÞñ541.ñÞñ›ñÞñ€Ð 0€ ÐDeliberation€requires€ð ððða€cool€mind€that€is€capable€of€reflection.ðððð€€òòIdóó.€It€cannot€beÐ ` Ðformed€instantaneously.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992);€òòStateÐ ð@ Ðv.€Darnellóó,€905€S.W.2d€953,€962€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð Ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àPremeditation€and€deliberation€are€separate€and€distinct€elements,Ïand€the€state€is€required€to€prove€both€in€order€to€establish€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeÐ p&À!$ ÐBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€542„43;€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€147.€€These€elements€presentÐ P( #& Ðquestions€for€the€jury€to€decide.€€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð 0*€%( Ð1993).€€However,€because€these€elements€entail€proof€of€a€state€of€mind€aboutÏwhich€there€may€be€no€direct€evidence,€ð ðthe€cases€have€long€recognized€that€theÏnecessary€elements€of€first„degree€murder€may€be€shown€by€circumstantialÏevidence.ðð€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€541;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóòòBullingtonóó,€532€S.W.2d€at€560;Ð °1-0 ÐòòState€v.€Carteróó,€970€S.W.2d€509,€516€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Thus,€premeditationÐ 3à.2 Ðand€deliberation€may€be€inferred€from€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€killing.€ÏòòGentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€at€3.€€For€instance,€facts€which€might€allow€a€jury€to€infer€eitherÐ P7 26 Ðpremeditation€or€deliberation€include:Ð 09€48 ÐÓÓà ` à(1)€facts€about€how€and€what€the€defendant€did€prior€to€the€actual€killing€Ìà ` àwhich€show€he€was€engaged€in€activity€directed€toward€the€killing,€that€isÌà ` àplanning€activity;Ìà ` à(2)€facts€about€the€defendantððs€prior€relationship€and€conduct€with€the€Ìà ` àvictim€from€which€motive€may€be€inferred;€andÌà ` à(3)€facts€about€the€nature€of€the€killing€from€which€it€may€be€inferred€that€the€Ìà ` àmanner€of€the€killing€was€so€particular€and€exacting€that€the€defendant€mustÌà ` àhave€intentionally€killed€according€to€a€preconceived€design.ÌÌòòÓÓState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€In€particular,Ð  p  ÐTennessee€courts€have€identified€some€relevant€circumstances:ÌÓÓà ` àthe€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€an€unarmed€victim;€the€fact€that€the€killingÌà ` àwas€particularly€cruel;€declaration€by€the€defendant€of€his€intent€to€kill;€andÌà ` àthe€making€of€preparations€before€the€killing€for€the€purpose€of€concealing€Ìà ` àthe€crime.ÌÌòòÓÓState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€660€(Tenn.€1997),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€„„„„€U.S.€„„„,€118Ð à ÐS.Ct.€1536€(1998).òò€óóÐ pÀ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€have€reviewed€a€number€of€cases€in€which€the€defendants€haveÏchallenged€the€sufficiency€of€the€elements€of€premeditation€and/or€deliberation.€€InÏcases€in€which€the€appellate€courts€have€affirmed€the€conviction€of€first€degreeÏmurder,€the€defendant€typically€procured€a€weapon€for€the€purpose€of€killing€theÏvictim.€€òòSeeóó,òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€501€(Tenn.€1997),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€„„„Ð °"  ÐU.S.€„„„,€118€S.Ct.€376€(1997);€òòState€v.€Abramsóó,€935€S.W.2d€399,€401€(Tenn.€1996);Ð $à" ÐòòState€v.€Bullingtonóó,€532€S.W.2d€556,€558€(Tenn.€€ñÞñœñÞñ1976);€€ñÞñòòóóñÞñòòStateñÞñ›ñÞñ€v.€Sharon€Lemingóó,Ð p&À!$ ÐNo.€01C01„9704„CC„00151,€slip€op.€at€10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Oct.€9,ÏñÞñœñÞñ1998)ñÞñòòóóòòóóòòóóñÞñ;ñÞñ›ñÞñ€òòState€v.€Steven€Tolbertóó,€No.€03C01„9707„CR„00325,€slip€op.€at€4,€(Tenn.Ð 0*€%( ÐCrim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Oct.€7,€ñÞñœñÞñ1998),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€CalvinÐ ,`'* ÐLee€Sneedóó,€No.€03C01„9611„CR„00444,€slip€op.€at€11€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,Ð ð-@), ÐJun.€12,€1998);ñÞñ›ñÞñ€€òòState€v.€Glenn€Bernard€Mannóó,€No.€02C01„9502„CC„00046,€slip€op.Ð Ð/ +. Ðat€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Aug.€16,€1996),€òòaffððdóó,€959€S.W.2d€503€(Tenn.Ð °1-0 Ð1998),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€„„„€U.S.€„„„,€118€S.Ct.€2376€(1998);€€òòState€v.€Kendricksóó,€947Ð 3à.2 ÐS.W.2d€875,€880€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Fugateóó,€776€S.W.2dÐ p5À04 Ð541,€545€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€In€many€of€these€cases,€a€history€of€strifeÏbetween€parties€was€present€and/or€an€argument€or€confrontation€immediatelyÐ 09€48 Ðpreceded€the€fatal€assault.€òòSharon€Lemingóó,€slip€op.€at€5;€òòKendricksóó,€947€S.W.2d€atÐ ° Ð880;€òòFugateóó,€776€S.W.2d€at€545.Ð à ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àOf€the€examined€cases€in€which€the€appellate€courts€reversed€the€firstÏdegree€murder€conviction€because€premeditation€or€deliberation€was€notÏestablished,€there€was€typically€no€procurement€of€a€weapon€for€the€purpose€ofÏkilling€the€victim.€€òòWestóó,€884€S.W.2d€at€148;€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€543;€òòState€v.Ð ð@  ÐDonald€Wallaceóó,€No.€01C01„9711„CC„€00526,€slip€op.€at€10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð Ð  ÐNashville,€Sept.€30,€1998);€òòState€v.€Schaferóó,€973€S.W.2d€269,€273€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ° ÐApp.€1997);€òòState€v.€Darnellóó,€905€S.W.2d€953,€962€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòStateÐ à Ðv.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòcfóó.€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€909€S.W.2dÐ pÀ Ð50,€55€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(insufficient€proof€of€premeditation€and€deliberationÏwhere€defendant€ð ðreached€her€boiling€pointðð€with€the€victimððs€sexual€harrassmentÏof€her€and€went€to€her€car€to€retrieve€gun€before€shooting,€but€not€killing,€the€victim).€ÏThese€cases€tend€to€follow€one€of€two€patterns€„„€either€there€was€no€proof€of€anyÏfacts€from€which€mental€state€could€be€inferred,€or€the€proof€established€that€theÏdefendant€was€incapable€of€either€premeditation€or€deliberation€or€both.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWith€the€foregoing€principles€and€guidelines€in€mind,€we€have€carefullyÏreviewed€the€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€state€of€mind€in€the€light€most€favorableÏto€the€state.€€This€evidence€is€of€three€types:€(1)€the€evidence€of€the€defendantððsÏprior€statement€about€killing€the€victim€before€he€would€return€to€jail;€(2)€the€noteÏauthored€by€the€defendant;€and€(3)€Fieldsððs€testimony€about€the€crucial€minutesÏbefore€the€shooting.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFieldsððs€testimony€differs€from€„„€or€at€least€is€more€specific€than€„„ÏWhitney€Johnsonððs€testimony.€€According€to€Fields,€the€defendant€threatened€to€killÏthe€victim€during€his€first€visit€to€the€bedroom€that€evening.€€The€defendant€said€heÏwould€not€allow€the€victim€to€get€his€money€and€that€he€was€through€living€the€wayÐ 09€48 Ðhe€was€living.€€The€defendant€then€descended€both€levels€to€retrieve€the€gun€andÏthe€shells€from€the€gun€cabinet.€€He€told€Fields,€ð ðI€was€going€to€kill€that€bitch,ðð€andÏhe€continued€ð ðramblingðð€over€and€over€again€that€Mrs.€Johnson€was€not€going€to€getÏhis€money€and€that€he€would€kill€her.€€When€Fields€tried€to€intervene,€the€defendantÏthreatened€him€and€ordered€him€out€of€the€way.€Fields€followed€the€defendant€to€theÏsecond€floor€where€the€kitchen€is€located€but€did€not€follow€the€defendant€to€theÏthird€floor€to€the€victimððs€bedroom.€€As€the€defendant€climbed€the€last€stair€flight,€heÏagain€repeated€that€he€intended€to€kill€the€victim.€€Fields€could€see€up€through€theÏatrium€space€onto€the€balcony€and€partially€through€the€bedroom€door.€€He€couldÏsee€the€defendant€and€the€upper€portion€of€the€victimððs€body.€€He€saw€the€defendantÏpull€the€victim€off€the€bed€onto€the€floor.€€The€defendant€pointed€the€shotgun€at€herÏand€told€her€that€he€was€going€to€kill€her.€€Fields€tried€to€dissuade€the€defendant€byÏtelling€him€in€a€loud€voice€that€he€had€ð ðtwo€wonderful€daughters€to€live€for€.€.€.€itÏwasnððt€worth€going€to€jail.€€A€divorce€would€be€easier.€€Everything€I€could€think€of.ðð€ÏFields€testified€that€the€defendant,€while€standing€on€the€balcony,€ð ðwould€look€backÏat€me.ðð€€The€defendant€said,€in€Fieldsððs€words,€that€the€defendant€ð ðhad€to€do€whatÏhe€had€to€do,€that€his€daughters€would€be€taken€care€of.ðð€€Fields€made€numerousÏpleas,€and€the€defendant€would€go€ð ðbackwards€and€forwards,ðð€away€from€theÏbedroom€and€then€back€inside.€€Five€minutes€elapsed€during€Fieldsððs€pleas€and€theÏdefendantððs€movements€in€and€out€of€the€bedroom.€€At€some€point,€Fields€realizedÏthat€the€defendant€ð ðhad€a€look€in€his€eyes,€and€.€.€.€I€knew€he€was€going€to€do€it.ðð€ÏAs€Fields€started€to€turn€away,€the€defendant€shot€the€victim.€€He€ran€down€theÏstairs,€ñÞñœñÞñaskedñÞñ›ñÞñ€Fields€where€his€shotgun€shells€were,€and€stated,€ð ðI€killed€her.ððÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€appeal,€both€sides€present€plausible,€formidable€arguments.€€ToÏbe€sure,€the€question€of€whether€deliberation,€in€particular,€was€established€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt€is€a€close€one.€However,€we€hold€that€the€defendant€has€notÏcarried€his€appellate€burden€and€that,€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€theÏevidence€provides€bases€upon€which€the€jury€could€infer€that€the€defendantÐ 09€48 Ðdeliberated€by€weighing€the€wisdom€and€the€consequences€of€the€homicide€that€heÏclearly€intended.€€Certainly,€the€defendant€was€emotional,€but€a€cool€purpose€ð ðis€notÏsynonymous€with€a€complete€absence€of€emotion.ðð€€òòState€v.€Nathan€Allen€Callahanóó,Ð pÀ ÐNo.€03C01„9507„CC„00203,€slip€op.€at€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Apr.€24,Ï1997),€òòaffððdóó,€979€S.W.2d€577€(Tenn.€1998).€€The€act€was€not€performedÐ 0 € Ðinstantaneously€after€he€became€climatically€enraged.€€Two€people„„one€of€them€theÏdefendantððs€daughter„„tried€to€intervene€and€desperately€pleaded€with€the€defendantÏto€reconsider.€€During€a€five„minute€interlude,€the€defendant€appears€to€haveÏpondered€the€murder€of€his€wife.€€Perhaps€no€one€will€ever€know€the€defendantððsÏtrue€state€of€mind€at€the€time€he€pulled€the€trigger.€€All€we€can€require€is€that€theÏstate€prove€sufficient€circumstances€ñÞñœñÞñfromñÞñ›ñÞñ€which€the€jury€can€infer€that€the€defendantÏpremeditated€and€deliberated€the€murder€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€In€theÏpresent€case,€the€state€met€this€burden.€€The€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€theÏconviction€of€first„degree€murder.€ÌÌÓ  ÓIIÌÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€jury„out€determinationsÏwhich€led€to€the€state€eliciting€testimony€from€defense€witnesses€on€cross„¼examination€that€the€defendant€(1)€smashed€windows€in€a€car€while€the€victim€wasÏseated€inside,€(2)€committed€an€assault€against€the€victim€for€which€she€obtainedÏa€warrant,€and€(3)€said€he€would€kill€the€victim€before€he€would€return€to€jail.€€TheÏrecord€is€somewhat€confusing€as€to€the€purpose€of€this€evidence.€€The€record€of€theÏtrial€courtððs€charge€conference€reflects€that€defense€counsel€thought€that€the€cross„¼examination€was€allowed€in€order€to€impeach€the€witnesses€by€contradicting€theirÏdirect€examination€testimony.€€Although€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€the€useÏof€the€testimony€about€the€two€assault€incidents€was€limited€to€its€effect€on€theÏcredibility€of€the€witnesses€Arin€and€Whitney€Johnson,€the€prior€threat€against€theÏvictim€was€used€as€substantive€evidence.€€ÌÐ 09€48 Ðà ` àà ¸ àThe€scope€of€cross„examination€includes€ð ðany€matter€relevant€to€anyÏissue€in€the€case,€including€credibility,ðð€except€that€the€scope€is€limited€to€the€subjectÏmatter€of€the€direct€examination€when€the€witness€is€an€adverse€party€of€theÏproponent.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€611(b).€€With€this€rule€as€a€guide,€the€control€of€cross„¼examination€is€entrusted€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€ñÞñœñÞñòòSeeóóñÞñ›ñÞñ€òòState€v.Ð 0 € ÐGayloróó,€862€S.W.2d€546€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Ð `  ÐÌÓ  Óà @` àà @¸ à(A)ÌÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àFirst,€we€examine€the€cross„examination€of€Arin€Johnson€in€which€sheÏtestified€that,€after€going€to€jail€on€an€assault€charge,€the€defendant€said€he€wouldÏkill€the€victim€before€he€would€go€to€jail€again.€€The€trial€court€stated€that€suchÏevidence€was€admissible€as€substantive€evidence€and€did€not€include€this€evidenceÏin€the€instruction€on€impeachment€of€witnesses.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€a€homicide€prosecution,€prior€threats€made€by€the€defendantÏagainst€the€victim€are€admissible€to€show€premeditation,€intent,€or€the€state€of€mindÏof€the€accused.€€òòState€v.€Rayóó,€880€S.W.2d€700,€704€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòStateÐ °"  Ðv.€Glebockóó,€616€S.W.2d€897,€905„06€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981);€òòHull€v.€Stateóó,€553Ð $à" ÐS.W.2d€90,€93€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€€The€probative€value€of€such€evidence€isÏhigh,€especially€in€a€case€such€as€the€present€case€where€the€threat€was€recentlyÏmade€and€the€defendant€at€trial€challenged€the€presence€of€premeditation€andÏdeliberation.€€We€conclude€that€the€prior€threat€evidence€was€admissible.ÌÌÓ  Ó(B)ÌÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àThe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€the€purpose€of€the€evidenceÏabout€the€May€1995€assault€against€the€victim€and€the€earlier€incident€of€breakingÏthe€car€windows€was€to€ð ðgive€.€.€.€an€explanation€of€the€ñÞñœñÞñwitness[esðð]ñÞñ›ñÞñ€testimony€andÏto€test€the€strength€or€weakness€of€any€witnessesðð€testimony.ðð€€The€court€cautionedÏthe€jury€that€such€evidence€could€not€be€used€to€reflect€upon€the€ð ðdefendantððsÐ 09€48 Ðcharacter€or€action€in€conformity€with€character€or€trait,ðð€and€the€court€gave€aÏgeneral€charge€on€impeaching€the€credibility€of€witnesses.€€The€court€instructed€theÏjury€that€ð ða€witness€may€be€impeached€by€a€careful€cross„examination,€involving€theÏwitness€in€contradictory,€unreasonable€and€improbable€statements.ðð€€à Ð àÐ P   Ðà ` àÌÌà ` àà ¸ àð ðThe€credibility€of€a€witness€may€be€attacked€by€any€party€.€.€.€.€ð ð€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.€607.€€Though€not€specifically€mentioned€in€the€Rules€of€Evidence,Ïimpeachment€by€fact€contradiction€is€well„accepted.€€Neil€P.€ñÞñœñÞñCohenñÞñ›ñÞñ€et€ñÞñœñÞñal.,ñÞñ›ñÞñÏTennessee€Law€of€Evidence€ðð€607.3,€at€338€(3d€ed.€1995)€(ð ðThe€general€rule€is€thatÏcounsel€can€challenge€the€accuracy€of€any€relevant€facts€during€cross„¼examination.ðð)€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€guilt€of€a€May€1995€assault€is€suggested€by€ArinÏJohnsonððs€testimony€that€he€apologized€and€told€the€family€it€would€not€happenÏagain.€€This€testimony€was€in€response€to€the€prosecutorððs€question€about€Ms.ÏJohnsonððs€direct€examination€statement€that€the€defendant€had€been€sleepingÏdownstairs€since€ð ðthe€assault€charges.ðð€€This€direct€testimony€was€equivocal€andÏinvited€exploration.€€The€witness€did€not€specify€whether€the€victim€had€charged€theÏdefendant€or€òòvice€versaóó.€€The€defense€put€ð ðthe€assault€chargesðð€at€issue.€€òòSeeóóòòStateÐ P( #& Ðv.€Jonesóó,€215€Tenn.€206,€217,€385€S.W.2d€80,€84„85€(1964)€(defendant€puttingÐ 0*€%( Ðrecord€at€issue€by€testifying€on€direct€examination€that€he€had€never€been€indictedÏor€convicted€provided€basis€for€admitting€cross„examination€about€a€prior€ð ðwhiskyÏviolationðð).€€Moreover,€the€elicited€evidence€was€arguably€admissible€through€theÏstateððs€case„in„chief€as€substantive€evidence.€€òòGlebockóó,€616€S.W.2d€at€905„06€(ð ðTheÐ °1-0 Ðrelations€existing€between€the€victim€[of€a€violent€assault]€and€the€defendant€priorÏto€the€commission€of€the€crime€are€relevant.€€These€relations€indicate€hostilityÏtoward€the€victim€and€a€settled€purpose€to€harm€the€ñÞñœñÞñvictim.ðð).€€Certainly,ñÞñ›ñÞñ€the€cross„¼examination€testimony€was€admissible€for€impeachment€purposes.Ð 09€48 Їà ` àà ¸ àThe€evidence€of€the€car„window€breaking€episode€was€also€admissibleÏthrough€cross„examination.€Whitney€Johnson€had€testified€that€on€the€day€of€theÏhomicide€the€defendant€was€in€a€rage€that€she€had€never€seen€before.€€On€cross„¼examination,€she€admitted€that€prior€to€June€21,€1995,€she€had€seen€him€in€such€aÏrage€when€he€attacked€Arin€Johnsonððs€car€with€the€sledge€hammer€while€Arin€andÏthe€victim€were€seated€inside€the€car.€€Clearly,€this€was€fact„contradictionÏimpeachment€at€work.€€òòSeeóó€òòLang€v.€Stateóó,€3€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€108,€„„„,€457€S.W.2dÐ ð@  Ð882,€885€(1970).€There€was€no€error€in€allowing€the€cross„examination.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€realize€that€in€both€instances€the€evidence€elicited€on€cross„¼examination€impugns€the€defendant€by€implicating€him€in€prior€bad€acts.€€òòSeeóóTenn.Ð pÀ ÐR.€Evid.€404(b);€608(b).€€However,€the€trial€court€held€jury„out€hearings€in€bothÏinstances,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)(1);€608(b)(1),€and€gave€the€jury€limitingÐ 0€ Ðinstructions€both€as€to€the€use€of€character€evidence€and€the€limited€purpose€ofÏimpeachment.€€These€precautions€employed€by€the€trial€court€are€sufficient€toÏprotect€the€defendant€against€any€incidental€ð ðbad€actsðð€effect€of€impeachmentÏthrough€fact€contradiction.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àIIIÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€defendantððs€next€issue,€he€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€juryÏinstruction€concerning€the€defendantððs€eligibility€for€parole€should€he€be€convictedÏof€any€of€the€various€grades€of€homicide.€The€instruction€was€given€at€the€stateððsÏrequest€and€was€based€upon€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„201(b)Ï(1997)€(amended€1998),€as€said€Code€section€existed€at€the€time€of€the€trial€in€thisÏcase.׃×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Paragraph€(b)(1)€of€this€section€authorized€the€trial€court€in€non„capitalÐ 3à.2 Ðcases,€upon€request€by€either€party,€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€ð ðpossible€penaltiesÏfor€the€offense€charged€and€all€lesser€included€offenses.ðð€€Once€the€request€isÏmade,€the€trial€court€is€required€by€paragraph€(b)(2)€to€also€instruct€ð ðthe€jury€toÏweigh€and€consider€the€meaning€of€a€sentence€of€imprisonment,ðð€to€provide€ð ðanÏapproximate€calculation€of€the€minimum€number€of€years€a€person€sentenced€toÏimprisonment€for€the€offense€charged€and€lesser€included€offenses€must€serveÏbefore€reaching€such€personððs€earliest€release€eligibility€date,ðð€and€to€inform€the€juryÏabout€section€41„21„236€maximum€and€minimum€sentence€reduction€credits€and€theÏgovernorððs€power€to€reduce€prison€overcrowding,€where€applicable.€€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„201(b)(1),€(2)€(1997)€(amended€1998).€€Paragraph€(b)(2)€was€addedÏto€the€statute€in€1994.€€1994€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€ch.€847,€ðð3.€€Prior€to€this€amendmentÏeither€party€could€request€the€ð ðpossible€penalties.ðð€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€held€a€charge€conference€withÏcounsel€after€the€defense€rested€its€case.€€In€the€conference,€the€state€mentionedÏits€request€to€charge€the€jury€pursuant€to€Code€section€40„35„201,€as€it€existed€atÏthat€time.€€The€trial€judge€indicated€he€would€charge€the€ranges€of€the€offenses€butÏwould€not€give€the€jury€the€paragraph€b(2)€information.€€Defense€counsel€originallyÏobjected€to€any€charge€on€penalties.€€When€the€trial€judge€said€he€would€give€theÏrelease€eligibly€time€for€a€life€sentence€and€would€give€the€Range€I€minimum€andÏmaximum€sentences€for€the€lesser€included€offenses,€defense€counsel€said€thereÏwas€ð ðno€reason€to€complicate€it€anymore€than€what€it€is.ðð€€The€defense€agreed€toÏlimiting€the€charge€to€the€range€information€as€proposed€by€the€court€as€a€HobsonððsÏchoice€between€a€limited€charge€and€one€that€contained€the€formula€information.€ÏSpecifically,€the€defendant€did€not€waive€its€underlying€objection€to€giving€anyÏcharge.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€trial€court€then€proceeded€to€instruct€the€jury€that,€although€it€Ð P7 26 Ðwould€not€attempt€to€fix€any€punishment,€it€could€ð ðweigh€and€consider€the€meaningÏof€a€sentence€of€imprisonment.ðð€€The€trial€court€then€proceeded€to€inform€the€juryÏthat€(1)€if€the€defendant€were€convicted€of€first€degree€murder,€he€would€receive€aÏlife€sentence€and€would€be€eligible€for€parole€consideration€after€serving€25€years;Ï(2)€if€convicted€of€second€degree€murder,€the€defendantððs€sentence€would€be€setÏin€a€range€between€fifteen€and€25€years;€(3)€if€convicted€of€voluntary€manslaughter,Ïthe€defendantððs€sentence€would€be€set€within€a€range€between€three€and€six€years;Ï(4)€similarly,€a€range€of€between€two€and€four€years€applied€to€€reckless€homicide;Ïand€(5)€a€range€of€between€one€and€two€years€applied€to€criminally€negligentÏhomicide.€€The€judge€instructed€the€jury€with€respect€to€each€offense€that€actualÏrelease€at€a€release€eligibility€date€is€a€discretionary€decision€of€the€Board€ofÏParoles€and€that€the€Board€has€the€authority€to€require€the€service€of€the€entireÏcourt„imposed€sentence.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€challenges€the€constitutionality€of€Code€section€40„35„¼201(b)€as€it€existed€at€the€time€of€trial.€€The€state€argues€first€that€the€defendant€hasÏwaived€any€objection€by€agreeing€to€the€ð ðhybridðð€charge.€The€state€also€argues€theÏissue€is€settled€by€the€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€973€S.W.2d€586€Ð $à" Ð(Tenn.€1997).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€agree€that€the€defendant€may€have€waived€any€claim€that€theÏð ðhybridðð€charge€is€a€violation€of€Code€section€40„35„201(b),€but€as€noted€above,€theÏdefendant€did€not€waive€any€claim€that€the€statute€or€the€ñÞñœñÞñgivenñÞñ›ñÞñ€charge€contravenesÏthe€state€or€federal€constitutions.€At€the€defendantððs€insistence,€the€trial€courtÏspecifically€acknowledged€when€it€elicited€the€agreement€on€giving€the€hybridÏcharge€that€the€defendant€was€not€waiving€his€ð ðòòFarrisóó€claim.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v€Farrisóó,€Ð 3à.2 Ð535€S.W.2d€608€(Tenn.€1976€)€(sustaining€a€constitutional€challenge€to€formerÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„2707(1975),€which€mandated€paroleÏeligibility€instructions,€based€upon€the€enactment€being€broader€than€its€caption,€òòseeóóÐ 09€48 ÐTenn.€ñÞñœñÞññ×ññÖñcñÖññ×ññØññ×ñCñ×ññØññÙñcñÙñonst.ñÞñ›ñÞñ€art.€II,€ðð€7,€with€two€members€of€the€court€finding€that€the€enactmentÏwas€unconstitutionally€vague,€€òòFarrisóó,€535€S.W.2d€at€612„13).Therefore,€we€proceedÐ à Ðto€the€heart€of€the€issue„„whether€the€charge€given€violated€pertinent€constitutionalÏprovisions.Ì€€Ìà ` àà ¸ àIn€òòKingóó,€the€defendant€requested€an€instruction€on€the€ð ðpossibleÐ `  Ðpenaltiesðð€as€contemplated€by€Code€section€40„35„201(b)(1),€but€he€asked€the€trialÏcourt€ð ðto€refrain€from€instructing€the€jury€on€parole€eligibility,€as€required€by€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201(b)(2)€whenever€an€instruction€is€given€under€(b)(1).ðð€€òòKingóó,€Ð ° Ð973€S.W.2d€at€587.€€The€trial€court,€however,€gave€the€full€instruction€as€describedÏin€both€paragraphs€(b)(1)€and€(2).€On€appeal,€King€claimed€that€paragraph€(b)(2)Ïand€the€instruction€given€thereunder€violated€both€the€state€constitutional€separationÏof€powers€provisions,€Tenn.€ñÞñœñÞññÚñCñÚññÛñcñÛñonst.ñÞñ›ñÞñ€art.€II,€ðððð€1,€2,€and€the€state€and€federalÏconstitutional€due€process€provisions.€€U.S.€const.€amend€14,€ðð€1;€Tenn.€const.€art.ÏI,€ðð€8.€€The€court€held€that€the€instruction€as€given€in€òòKingóó€offended€no€constitutionalÐ ð@ Ðprovisions.€€It€must€be€recognized,€however,€that€in€òòKingóó€(1)€the€trial€court€instructedÐ Ð  Ðthe€jury€as€to€a€range€between€the€shortest€possible€sentence€(Range€I)€and€theÏlongest€possible€sentence€(Range€III),€and€(2)€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€thatÏthe€sentencing€information€was€ð ðfor€your€information€onlyðð€and€disdained€the€ð ðweighÏand€considerðð€formulation€of€paragraph€(b)(2).€€òòKingóó,€973€S.W.2d€at€592.€€Ð P( #& ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€it€would€notÏbe€determining€the€sentence,€but€in€giving€range€information,€the€trial€court€used€Ïthe€ð ðweigh€and€considerðð€phrase.€€Despite€this€distinction€between€òòKingóó€and€theÐ Ð/ +. Ðpresent€case,€we€hold€that€the€instruction€given€violated€no€constitutional€provision.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFirst,€we€examine€the€trial€courtððs€limiting€the€ð ðpossible€penaltiesððÏinformation€to€Range€I.€€Although€the€trial€court€in€the€present€case€did€not€chargeÏthe€longer€punishments€that€accompany€sentencing€in€Ranges€II€(multiple€offender)Ð 09€48 Ðand€III€(persistent€offender),€there€was€no€realistic€possibility€that€the€defendantÏwould€be€sentenced€in€any€range€higher€than€Range€I€(standard€offender).€€In€òòKingóó,Ð à Ðthe€supreme€court€approved€of€this€courtððs€pronouncement€in€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€926Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€267,€271€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€that€the€jury€was€properly€œcharñàñtñàññâññáñGñáññâññãñgñãñed›€on€theÏfull€scope€of€the€sentencing€range€running€from€the€minimum€in€Range€I€to€theÏmaximum€in€Range€II,€the€highest€sentence€for€which€Smith€was€eligible.€€òòKingóó,€973Ð `  ÐS.W.2d€at€€591.€€The€jury€was€properly€instructed€when€it€ð ðððwas€aware€of€theÏpossible€range€of€punishment€that€could€have€resulted€from€their€verdict.ðððð€òòIdóó.Ð Ð  Ð(quoting€òòSmithóó,€926€S.W.2d€at€271).€€€Likewise,€the€jury€was€properly€instructed€inÐ ° Ðthe€present€case€even€though€the€higher€punishments€in€Ranges€II€and€III€were€notÏcharged.€€The€jury€was€given€the€ð ðpossible€range€of€punishment€that€could€haveÏresulted€from€their€verdict.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð P  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€now€examine€the€effect€of€the€charge€given€in€the€present€case,Ïincluding€the€effect€of€the€trial€courtððs€use€of€the€ð ðweigh€and€considerðð€statutoryÏlanguage€instead€of€the€ð ðinformation€onlyðð€language€actually€used€in€òòKingóó.Ð Ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€òòState€v.€Jason€M.€Weiskopfóó,€No.€02C01„9611„CR„00381€(Tenn.Ð $à" ÐCrim.€App.,€Jackson,€Feb.€4,€1998)€(òòWeiskopf€Ióó),€a€panel€of€this€court€foundÐ p&À!$ Ðconstitutional€error€in€the€use€of€a€paragraph€(b)(2)€jury€instruction€that€used€theÏð ðweigh€and€considerðð€language.€€Our€supreme€court,€granted€Weiskopfððs€applicationÏfor€permission€to€appeal€for€the€purpose€of€remanding€the€case€to€this€court€ð ðforÏreconsideration€in€light€ofðð€òòKingóó.€€òòState€v.€Jason€M.€ñÞñœñÞñWeiskopfóóñÜñ,ñÜññÞñ›ñÞñ€€(Tenn.,€Jackson,€Nov.Ð ð-@), Ð2,€1998)€(per€curiam€order).€€Upon€reconsideration,€this€court€held€that€the€ð ðweighÏand€considerðð€mandate€given€to€the€jury€distinguished€òòWeiskopfóó€from€òòKingóó.€€òòStateÐ °1-0 Ðv.€Jason€M.€Weiskopfóó,€No.€02C01„9611„CR„00381,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð 3à.2 ÐJackson,€Dec.€4,€1998)€(òòWeiskopf€IIóó),€òòpetóó.€òòforóó€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòfiledóó€(Tenn.,€Feb.€3,€1999).Ð p5À04 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€òòWeiskopf€IIóó€court€interpreted€the€due€process€determination€inÐ 09€48 ÐòòKingóó€to€be€limited€to€cases€in€which€the€ð ðfor€information€onlyðð€language€was€used,Ð ° Ðbased€upon€the€supreme€courtððs€statement€that€no€due€process€violation€occurredÏð ðunder€the€circumstances.ðð€òòKingóó,€973€S.W.2d€at€592.€€The€òòWeiskopf€IIóó€courtÐ pÀ Ðconcluded€ð ð[t]here€is€a€glaring€and€pivotal€differenceðð€in€using€one€locution€versusÏthe€other.€€òòWeiskopf€IIóó,€slip€op.€at€5.€€In€òòWeiskopfóó,€a€first€degree€murder€case,€theÐ 0 € Ðjury€was€instructed€ð ðthat€the€earliest€release€eligibility€date€for€first€degree€murderÏwas€25€years;€the€earliest€release€eligibility€date€for€second€degree€murder€was€1.06Ïyears;€and€the€earliest€release€eligibility€date€for€voluntary€manslaughter€was€.21Ïyears.ðð€€òòWeiskopf€IIóó,€slip€op.€at€4.€€This€court€said,€ð ðWhen€a€jury€is€told€to€ððweigh€andÐ ° Ðconsiderðð€the€meaning€of€a€sentence€in€arriving€at€a€verdict,€the€nature€of€theÏproblem€is€perfectly€obvious.ðð€€òòWeiskopf€IIóó,€slip€op.€at€6.€€The€court€held€that€theÐ pÀ Ðinstruction€given€violated€the€due€process€provisions€of€both€the€federal€and€stateÏconstitutions.€€òòIdóó.€Ð 0€ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àAlthough€the€trial€court€in€the€present€case€told€the€jury€to€weigh€andÏconsider€the€penalty€information€the€court€imparted,€that€information€was€limited€toÏthe€paragraph€(b)(1)€information,€with€the€exception€that€the€trial€court€stated€thatÏthe€release€eligibility€date€for€first€degree€murder€was€25€years.€€€With€thisÏexception,€none€of€the€paragraph€(b)(2)€information€was€given.€€We€conclude€that,Ïjust€as€òòWeiskopfóó€was€distinguishable€from€òòKingóó,€the€present€case€is€distinguishableÐ P( #& Ðfrom€òòWeiskopfóó.€€The€charge€in€the€present€case€contained€none€of€the€paragraphÐ 0*€%( Ð(b)(2)€information€that€would€disparage€the€selection€of€lesser€included€offenses.€ÏWe€hold€that,€under€the€circumstances€of€the€present€case,€the€general€rationale€ofÐ ð-@), ÐòòKingóó€controls.€€The€defendant€has€failed€to€establish€that€any€constitutionalÐ Ð/ +. Ðprinciples€invalidate€the€procedures€used€in€the€present€case.ÌÌÓ  ÓIIIÌÌÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àIn€his€final€issue,€the€defendant€complains€about€the€trial€courtððsÐ 09€48 Ðrefusal€to€give€to€the€jury€the€defendantððs€requested€charge€on€the€meaning€ofÏð ðpassion.ðð€€The€requested€charge€says:ÌÒ` ÒÒ°ÒÓÓ(a)€In€order€for€a€killing€to€constitute€murder€in€the€first€degree,€theÏkilling€must€be€performed€with€a€cool€purpose,€and€the€cool€purposeÏmust€be€formed€and€the€deliberate€intention€conceived€in€the€mind€ofÏthe€accused,€in€the€absence€of€passion,€to€take€the€life€of€the€personÏslain.ÌÌ(b)€ð ðPassionðð€means€any€of€the€human€emotions€known€as€anger,Ïrage,€sudden€resentment€or€fervor€which€renders€the€mind€incapableÏof€cool€reflection.ÌÌÒ` ÒÒ°ÒÓÓThe€trial€court€acknowledged€that€the€requested€language€was€extracted€from€òòStateÐ Ð  Ðv.€Bullingtonóó,€532€S.W.2d€556€(Tenn.€1976);€however,€the€court€stated€that€theÐ ° ÐTennessee€Pattern€Instruction€charge€would€be€sufficient.€€The€trial€court€chargedÏthe€jury€as€follows:ÌÒ` ÒÒ°ÒÓÓFor€you€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€this€offense,€the€state€mustÏhave€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€existence€of€theÏfollowing€essential€elements:ÌÌ.€.€.ÌÌ(3)€that€the€killing€was€deliberate.€€A€deliberate€killing€is€one€done€„„Ïone€performed€with€cool€purpose;€.€.€.€.€ÌÌ.€.€.€ÌÌThe€mental€state€of€the€accused€at€the€time€he€allegedly€decided€toÏkill€must€be€carefully€considered€in€order€to€determine€whether€theÏaccused€was€sufficiently€free€from€excitement€and€passion€as€to€beÏcapable€of€premeditation.€€If€the€design€to€kill€was€formed€withÏdeliberation€and€premeditation,€it€is€immaterial€that€the€accused€mayÏhave€been€in€a€state€of€passion€or€excitement€when€the€design€wasÏcarried€into€effect.€€Furthermore,€premeditation€can€be€found€if€theÏdecision€to€kill€is€first€formed€during€the€heat€of€passion,€but€theÏaccused€commits€the€act€after€the€passion€has€subsided.ÌÌÒ` ÒÒ°ÒÓÓÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€complete€and€correct€charge€of€the€law.€ÏòòState€v.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.€1990),€including€the€law€governing€theÐ À0,/ Ðissues€raised€by€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,€892€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð  2ð-1 ÐApp€1995).€€A€court€commits€no€error€by€refusing€a€special€charge€if€the€instructionsÏgiven€impart€a€correct,€full€and€fair€statement€of€the€applicable€law.€€òòIdóó.Ð `6°15 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€adequately€instructed€the€jury€on€theÐ  :p59 Ðmeaning€of€the€applicable€elements€of€first€degree€murder.€€The€charge€as€givenÏexplained€the€role€of€passion€on€the€issue€of€deliberation.€€There€was€no€need€toÏaugment€the€courtððs€instruction€with€language€that€explained€the€common€termÏð ðpassion.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bennettóó,€798€S.W.2d€783,€790€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ð P   ÐÌÓ  ÓVÌÓ  ÓÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€conclusion,€we€find€no€reversible€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court.ÌÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JudgeÌà ` àà ¸ àÌà ` àò òÌÌÌó óCONCUR:Ð ` ÐÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€ñÞñœñÞñJudgeñÝñÌñÝññÞñ›œñÞññÝñÌñÝññÞñ›œñÞññÝñÌñÝññÞñ›œñÞññÝñÌñÝññÞñ›œñÞññÝñÌñÝññÞñ›ñÞñ