ÿWPC| ¢# ìUN÷ %E 0((K 4s U:‡ Á 0‹Ð 0c[ 0@¾ U:þ U:8 0Jr D3¼ 0Tï 0^C 0h¡ 0r  0|{ 0†÷Ð} 0M 1uÝU&,R 0d~ Bâw@ÿU,?UG>kU1*©B)ÓDCü AM?.Œˆº„BÆ:âBJ^¨,8!Wd(8»)%ó+â.·ú/l±3§6§Ä9Ík;8@ÄWG\JŒwKfMöiOl_QXËSd#V‚‡WW \ð`]‚P`›ÒaémdœVf_òlÈQn÷qv~svÓŽt AOazưz 0Dv{ D/º{ Bé{˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡»{s Ø'îÇFò',c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular3|x@(;(2Ôõ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XëXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("׊$Ô€ XXçXXXÔòòÚ  Ú8Ú  Úóó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô$$$$'ÿÿdxd2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔEppersonYouree HoltCavnessLaTonyaSameraZavaroSweattstabbingsRedickFultonBordis appLaFaveSneedT.R.A.P.HatchettTharpeStrouthRainesBeckhamindigencyStrawnHedrickDillinghamBoxleyPursleyO'GuinnNakdimen T]heChesternutMosieruncoercedConnelly 6thSammonsYount2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d óô"$%U&01V2Ó€>< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd€ 1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ $Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òAugust€16,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ~Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€,ôÔÔ€.Ô€à àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€In€addition€to€the€sentence€of€death,€the€trial€court€imposed€concurrent€sentencesÏof€twenty„five€years€incarceration€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€for€theÏaggravated€rape€conviction€and€six€years€incarceration€for€the€aggravated€burglaryÏconviction.Ô€,Ô€Ô€.Ô€In€this€appeal,€the€appellant€does€not€challenge€the€aggravated€rape€and€theÏaggravated€burglary€convictions€and€sentences.Ì zÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€,ôÔÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóHowever,€Dr.€Smith€later€observed€that€blood€patterns€on€her€body€indicated€thatÏMs.€Wilson€might€have€been€in€an€upright€position€when€subsequent€injuries€were€inflicted.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€,ôÔÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóA€portion€of€Ms.€Wilsonððs€night€gown€was€embedded€in€this€wound.Ì 0Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€,ôÔÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóLottie€McPherson€also€testified€that€her€mother€wore€a€hearing€aid€and€could€notÏhear€without€it.Ì 8Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€,ôÔÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€precise€order€in€which€the€events€occurred€is,€in€fact,€somewhat€unclear.€€òòSeeÏinfraóó€part€2(A).Ì @Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€,ôÔÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIndeed,€the€appellant€stated€that€he€had€not€told€anyone€what€had€happened€priorÏto€his€confession€to€the€police.Ì †Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€,ôÔÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAccording€to€Dr.€Smith,€apparent€blood€spatters€in€the€victimððs€bedroom€that€wereÏmarked€on€a€crime€scene€diagram€were€inconsistent€with€a€scenario€involving€anÏunconscious€victim.Ì "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ôÔ€€This€court€is€aware€of€the€very€recent€decision€of€State€v.€Odom,€__S.W.2d__€(Tenn.Ï1996),€in€à0 àwhich€a€seventy„eight€year€old€murder€victim€was€raped,€robbed,€and€dufferedÏmultiple€stab€wounds,€including€penetrating€wounds€to€the€heart,€lungs,€and€liver.€€InÏthe€medical€examinerððs€opinion€death€occurred€ð ðrather€quickly.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€The€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€found€this€evidence€insufficient€to€sustain€a€finding€by€the€jury€thatÏthe€murder€was€especially€ð ðheinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€orÏserious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.ðð€€òòSeeóó,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€Section€39„13„204(i)(5).Ìà àÌà àà àIn€the€instant€case,€however,€the€evidence€revealed€that€the€sixty„two€year€old€victimÏwas€à0 àdigitally€raped€and€suffered€numerous,€severely€painful€blows€and€stab€wounds.€€She€wasÏalso€manually€strangled€which,€according€to€medical€testimony,€would€have€caused€severeÏdistress€as€her€air€supply€was€cut€off.€€All€of€these€injuries€were€inflicted€prior€to€the€victimððsÏdeath.€€Moreover,€the€victim€could€have€survived€as€long€as€one€hour€following€theÏstabbings.€€We€are€convinced€that€the€medical€testimony,€in€this€case,€concerning€theÏseverely€painful€nature€of€the€wounds€inflicted€and€the€strangulation€of€the€victim€distinguishÏthis€case€from€òòOdomóó.€€Although€the€appellant€has€not€raised€theÔ€.XÔ€Ô€.ôÔissue,€we€have€noÏhesitation€in€concluding€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€sustain€the€ð ðheinous,€atrocious€orÏcruelðð€aggravating€factor.Ô€.XÔÌ MÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€,ôÔÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€address€the€admissibility€of€the€appellantððs€statements€to€the€police€later€in€thisÏopinion.€€òòSee€infraóó€part€2(D).Ì .Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€,ôÔÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWith€respect€to€deliberation,€we€note€that,€in€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€5Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994),€this€court€stated,€ð ðTheÏ[mere]€presence€of€agitation€or€even€anger,€in€our€view,€does€not€necessarily€mean€that€theÏmurder€could€not€have€occurred€with€the€requisite€degree€of€deliberation.ððÌ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAlÔ€.ôÔthough€the€appellant€challenges€the€trial€court's€denial€of€expert€services,€òòseeÏinfraóó€part€2(C)(iii),€the€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€did€grant€the€appellant€access€to€aÏpsychologist.€€However,€the€appellant€never€introduced€the€testimony€of€the€psychologistÏconcerning€his€mental€state€at€the€time€of€the€offense.Ì ØÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€,ôÔÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIn€òòBrownóó,€the€supreme€court€suggested€abandoning€an€instruction€to€the€jury€thatÏpremeditation€can€be€formed€in€an€instant.€€836€S.W.2d€at€543.€€The€court€observed€that,Ïbecause€deliberation€requires€more€time,€the€instruction€could€confuse€a€jury.€€òòIdóó.Ì ­Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€,ôÔÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIt€is€not€altogether€clear€from€the€record€whether€the€appellant€raped€Ms.€WilsonÏbefore€or€after€the€initial€blows€to€the€head.€€The€appellantððs€statement€suggests€that€heÏraped€her€before€hitting€her€in€the€head€with€the€ceramic€cat.€€The€appellant€engaged€in€theÏfollowing€exchange€with€Investigator€McDowell:Ìà8 àMannà8 àà8 à€ð ðYou€know,€oh€okay€before€I€hit€her€in€theÏhead€with€the€statue€and€I€took€her€in€theÏroom€and€I€tore€her€whatððs€the€name€off€...ÏPanties€...€.ððÌÌà@ à...ÌÌà8 àMcDowellà8 àOkay,€is€that€when€you€had€sex€with€herÏbefore€you€hit€her€in€the€head?ÌÌà8 àMannà8 àà8 àWell,€I€didnððt€have€sex€with€her€...€I€put€my€twoÏmiddle€fingers€in€her€...Ì bÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€,ôÔÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant,€in€fact,€argues€that€the€random€and€haphazard€nature€of€theÏwounds€indicate€the€absence€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€We€would€note€that,Ïalthough€the€appellant€inflicted€various€types€of€wounds,€the€record€reflects€that€he€did€so€inÏa€systematic€manner.€€The€jury€could€have€inferred€from€the€nature€of€the€wounds€that€theÏappellant€simply€wanted€to€assure€Ms.€Wilsonððs€death.€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€,ôÔÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€State€argues€that€these€and€other€issues€have€been€waived.€€However,€inÏcapital€cases,€because€of€the€qualitative€difference€between€death€and€other€sentences,€ourÏsupreme€court€has€normally€addressed€the€merits€of€an€issue€even€if€the€appellant€did€notÏtimely€object€to€the€error€or€raise€the€issue€in€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,Ï885€S.W.2d€797,€805€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67„68€(Tenn.€1985),Ïòòcert.€deniedóó,€475€U.S.€1031,€106€S.Ct.€1240€(1986);€òòState€v.€Strouthóó,€620€S.W.2d€467,€471Ï(Tenn.€1981),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€455€U.S.€983,€102€S.Ct.€1491€(1982).€€Accordingly,€we€considerÏthe€merits€of€the€issues€raised€in€the€appellantððs€brief.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€,ôÔÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€contends€that,€because€the€trial€court's€instruction€on€second€degreeÏmurder€failed€to€include€a€definition€of€"passion,"€it€was€erroneous.€€This€issue€is€addressedÏòòinfraóó€part€2(B)(iii).Ì ÃÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€defendant€has€a€constitutional€right€to€a€correct€and€complete€charge€of€theÏlaw.€€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€498€U.S.€1007,€111€S.Ct.€571Ï(1990);€òòState€v.€Forbesóó,€918€S.W.2d€431,€447€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€However,€this€courtÏneed€only€invalidate€the€jury€charge€ð ðif,€when€read€as€a€whole,€it€fails€to€fairly€submit€the€legalÏissues€or€misleads€the€jury€as€to€the€applicable€law.ðð€€òòForbesóó,€918€S.W.2d€at€447€(citing€òòStateÏv.€Phippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€138,€142€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)).€€This€court€has€observed€that€theÏinstruction,€that€a€homicide€is€presumed€to€be€second€degree€murder,€is€designed€to€informÏthe€jury€that€the€State€has€the€burden€of€proving€each€and€every€element€of€the€offense€ofÏfirst€degree€murder.€€òòState€v.€Montagueóó,€No.€03C01„9306„CR„00192€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏKnoxville,€November€21,€1994),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995).€€We€conclude€thatÏthe€jury€instructions€in€this€case€served€that€purpose.€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€cites€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€134,€137€(Tenn.€1993),€andÏòòState€v.€Brownóó,€823€S.W.2d€576,€583€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€for€the€general€propositionÏthat,€in€cases€involving€a€potential€for€a€ð ðpatchwork€verdictðð€based€on€different€offenses€inÏevidence,€the€trial€court€must€augment€the€general€unanimity€instruction€to€insure€that€theÏjury€understands€its€duty€to€agree€unanimously€to€a€particular€set€of€facts.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòForbesóó,Ï918€S.W.2d€at€446€(ð ð[w]here€there€is€technically€one€offense,€but€evidence€of€multiple€actsÏwhich€would€constitute€the€offense,€a€defendant€is€still€entitled€to€the€protection€ofÏunanimityðð).€€òòCompareóó€òòSchad€v.€Arizonaóó,€501€U.S.€624,€632„633,€111€S.Ct.€2491,€2497„2498Ï(1991)(a€plurality€of€the€Supreme€Court€observed€that€there€is€no€general€requirement€underÏthe€federal€constitution€that€a€jury€reach€agreement€on€preliminary€factual€issues€whichÏunderlie€a€verdict,€either€with€respect€to€actus€reus€or€mens€rea,€unless€the€ð ðdifferencesÏbetween€means€[of€committing€a€crime]€become€so€important€that€they€may€not€reasonablyÏbe€viewed€as€alternatives€to€a€common€end,€but€must€be€treated€as€differentiating€what€theÏConstitution€requires€to€be€treated€as€separate€offensesðð);€òòUnited€States€v.€Sandersonóó,€966ÏF.2d€184,€187„188€(6th€Cir.€1992).€€However,€we€do€not€agree€with€the€appellant€that€theÏrelevant€statutes€and€jury€instructions€in€this€case€provided€alternative€mental€states€fromÏwhich€members€of€the€jury€could€choose€in€finding€the€appellant€guilty€of€premeditated€firstÏdegree€murder.Ì ºÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóDefense€counsel€also€submitted€a€motion€for€the€appointment€of€co„counsel.€ÏApparently€Mr.€Strawn,€a€law€partner€of€lead€counsel€Mr.€Kelly,€had€been€assisting€in€theÏrepresentation€and€requested€appointment.€€However,€because€the€judge€believed€he€wasÏobligated€to€appoint€the€public€defender,€he€did€not€appoint€Mr.€Strawn€as€co„counsel.€€Mr.ÏStrawn€had,€in€fact,€previously€filed€a€notice€of€appearance.€€On€March€1,€1994,€the€courtÏallowed€Mr.€Strawn€to€withdraw€his€notice€of€appearance.Ì RÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAn€earlier€motion€for€support€services€was€denied€on€December€15,€1993,€becauseÏthe€appellant€had€not€yet€been€declared€indigent.€€Ì ‚Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWhen€the€public€defender€was€appointed€on€April€8,€1994,€the€trial€was€tentativelyÏset€for€May€3,€1994.€€However,€on€May€3,€1994,€the€court€continued€the€trial€until€May€31,Ï1994.Ì \Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€,ôÔÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€investigator€used€by€defense€counsel€was€associated€with€lead€counsel's€firm.€ÏThus,€the€investigator€was€arguably€available€to€lead€counsel€when€counsel€made€his€initialÏappearance€in€this€case€in€August,€1993.€€As€mentioned€earlier,€the€record€does€reveal€thatÏthe€trial€court€denied€counsel's€request€for€investigative€services€in€December,€1993,€beforeÏthe€appellant€was€declared€indigent.Ì ìÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAt€no€time€during€his€representation€of€the€appellant€did€lead€counsel,€Mr.€Kelly,Ïenter€a€motion€to€withdraw€due€to€lack€of€compensation.€€Mr.€Kelly€did,€however,€enter€aÏmotion€to€withdraw€due€to€ethical€considerations.€€The€trial€court€determined€that€this€motionÏwas€without€merit.Ì bÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€,ôÔÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóMr.€Strawn,€law€partner€with€lead€counsel€Mr.€Kelly,€filed€a€notice€of€appearance€inÏthis€case€which€the€trial€court€allowed.€€Mr.€Strawn€also€attempted€to€receive€compensationÏfor€his€representation.€€Because,€however,€the€court€would€not€appoint€private€counsel€beforeÏappointing€the€public€defender,€on€March€1,€1994,€Mr.€Strawn€sought€and€was€grantedÏpermission€to€withdraw€his€notice€of€appearance.Ì NÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThere€was€some€question€in€the€trial€court€concerning€ABA€guidelines€governingÏthe€trial€qualifications€of€lead€counsel€and€co„counsel€in€a€capital€case.€€Under€the€guidelines,Ïlead€counsel€in€a€capital€case€should€have€some€prior€experience€with€capital€cases.€€Mr.ÏKelly€possessed€such€prior€experience.€€Because€he€did€not€move€to€withdraw,€the€courtÏsatisfied€the€ABA€guidelines.Ì ZÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAlthough€the€court€authorized€funding€for€the€psychological€services€of€Dr.€GillianÏBlair,€the€appellant€never€introduced€her€as€a€witness.Ì xÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€officers€uncommunicated€belief€that€the€person€being€questioned€is€a€primeÏsuspect€has€no€bearing€on€the€custodial€interrogation€determination.€€òòIdóó.€at€1529„1530.€€InÏòòBeckwith€v.€United€Statesóó,€425€U.S.€341,€346,€96€S.Ct.€1612,€1616€(1976),€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€expressly€rejected€the€contention€that€the€"in€custody"€requirement€whichÏtriggers€òòMirandaóó€warnings€was€satisfied€merely€because€the€police€interviewed€a€suspect€whoÏwas€the€"focus"€of€a€criminal€investigation.€€The€Court€held:€€"It€was€the€compulsive€aspect€ofÏcustodial€interrogation€and€not€the€strength€or€content€of€the€government's€suspicions€at€theÏtime€the€questioning€was€conducted,€which€led€the€court€to€impose€òòMirandaóó€requirementsÏwith€regard€to€custodial€questioning."€€òòId.óó€€Nor€are€warnings€required€simply€because€theÏquestioning€takes€place€at€the€station€house.€€òòMathiasonóó,€429€U.S.€at€495,€97€S.Ct.€at€714.Ì MÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAs€mentioned€earlier,€Investigator€Cavness€testified€that€the€appellant€and€his€wifeÏwere€nonetheless€advised€of€their€rights.Ì æÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóPrior€to€submitting€briefs€in€this€case,€the€appellant€filed€a€motion€to€remand€theÏcase€to€the€trial€court€for€an€evidentiary€hearing€in€order€to€further€develop€the€record€withÏrespect€to€the€following€issues:€€whether€the€appellant€was€denied€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel;€whether€pre„trial€exposure€to€information€affected€the€impartiality€of€prospectiveÏjurors;€and€whether€the€jury€selection€process€in€Dyer€County€results€in€a€significant€under„representation€of€a€cognizable€group.€€A€panel€of€this€Court€denied€that€motion.Ì xÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€note€that€the€appellant€did€not€offer€into€evidence€any€newspaper€article€orÏtelevision€report€which€contained€information€that€would€have€been€inadmissible€at€trial.Ì ‘Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€also€appears€to€raise€a€Fourteenth€Amendment€equal€protectionÏchallenge€to€the€selection€of€the€venire.€€However,€the€appellant€has€failed€to€present€anyÏproof€of€purposeful€discrimination€in€the€selection€process.€òòSeeóó€òòEvansóó,€838€S.W.2d€at€193Ï(citing€òòCastaneda€v.€Partidaóó,€430€U.S.€482,€494,€97€S.Ct.€1272,€1280€(1977)).€€òòSee€alsoóóÏòòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476€U.S.€79,€93„97,€106€S.Ct.€1712,€1721„1722€€(1986).Ì ßÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€recognize€that€the€appellant€automatically€satisfies€the€first€prong€as€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€has€recognized€African„Americans€to€be€a€distinctive€group€in€theÏcommunity.€€òòSeeóó€òòAlexander€v.€€Louisianaóó,€405€U.S.€625,€628,€92€S.Ct.€1221,€1224€(1972).Ì ’Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€.ôÔWe€note€that€the€statistics€provided€by€the€Dyer€County€Circuit€Court€Clerk€revealÏthat€licensed€drivers€in€Dyer€County€constitute€73.68€percent€of€the€òòentireóó€population€of€theÏcounty.€€Thus,€it€is€readily€apparent€that€the€list€of€licensed€drivers€ð ðprovide[s]€a€large€andÏeasily€accessible€source€of€names,€to€which€all€potential€jurors€have€equal€access€and€whichÏdisqualifies€jurors€solely€on€the€basis€of€objective€criteria.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.ÏRogersóó,€73€F.3d€774,€777€n.2€(8th€Cir.€1996)(the€author€of€the€opinion€noted€that€severalÏfederal€districts€supplement€their€jury€lists€with€persons€who€have€a€driverððs€license€to€increaseÏminority€representation);€òòInabinett€v.€Stateóó,€668€So.2d€170,€173€(Ala.€Cr.€App.Ï1995)(selecting€jurors€from€a€list€of€licensed€drivers€does€not€violate€the€fair€cross„sectionÏrequirement€of€the€Sixth€Amendment);€òòState€v.€Pazóó,€798€P.2d€1,€9€(Idaho€1990),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó€501€U.S.€1259,€111€S.Ct.€2911€(1991),€òòoverruled€on€other€grounds€byóó€òòState€v.€Cardóó,Ï825€P.2d€1081€(Idaho€1991)(voter€registration€lists€and€driverððs€license€lists€are€appropriateÏsources€from€which€to€select€jurors);€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€531€N.W.2d€284,€287€(N.D.Ï1995)(unsubstantiated€assertion€that€the€use€of€jury€source€lists€other€than€voters€and€driverððsÏlicense€lists,€like€phone€books,€would€have€been€more€representative€was€insufficient€toÏestablish€a€Sixth€Amendment€claim).Ì UÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€,ôÔÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€issue€of€whether€the€plea€offer€unconstitutionally€tainted€the€imposition€of€theÏdeath€penalty€is€addressed€òòinfraóó€part€2(H).Ì ¾Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€.ôÔMoreover,€in€òòMcCleskey€v.€Kempóó,€481€U.S.€279,€312,€107€S.Ct.€1756,€1778€(1987)Ï(citations€omitted),€the€Supreme€Court€noted,ÌÌà8 à[A]€prosecutor€can€decline€to€charge,€offer€a€plea€bargain,€or€decline€to€seekÏa€death€sentence€in€any€particular€case.€.€.€Of€course,€"the€power€to€beÏlenient€[also]€is€the€power€to€discriminate,"€.€.€.€but€a€capital€punishmentÏsystem€that€did€not€allow€for€discretionary€acts€of€leniency€"would€be€totallyÏalien€to€our€notions€of€criminal€justice.ððÌ íÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóNo€execution€date€is€set€in€this€opinion.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(a)(1)Ïprovides€for€automatic€review€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€upon€affirmance€of€theÏdeath€penalty.€€If€the€sentence€of€death€is€upheld€by€the€supreme€court€on€review,€that€courtÏwill€set€the€execution€date.ÌPtPtHHÚ(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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€ ‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€++X„d&ÓÑ#€++Xd#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€.ÔÑ7€ëXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›à@ àò òIN€THE€TENNESSEE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSÌà@ àAT€JACKSON̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓßL€231;+'h|áƒ` ¤ `€€Lß›à@ àJANUARY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óAppellee,ò òà àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.Ï02C01„9502„CC„00046Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óVS.ò òà àà àà àà àà à)à àDYER€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)ÌGLENN€BERNARD€MANN,à à)à àó óHonorable€ò ò€JOE€G.€RILEYó ó,€Judgeò òÌà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(First€Degree€Murder)ò òÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àÌòòÌÌFor€the€Appellantóóà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€AppelleeóóÌÌWilliam€P.€Redick,€Jr.à àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌPeter€D.€Heilà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌCapital€Case€Resource€Centerà àà àà àà àÌ704€18th€Ave.€Southà àà àà àà àÌNashville,€TN€37203à àà àà àAmy€L.€TarkingtonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€Phillip€BivensÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDyer€County€CourthouseÌò òà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDyersburg,€TN€€38024ò òÌÌÌÌÌÌó óOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌò òFIRST€DEGREE€MURDER€CONVICTION€AND€DEATH€SENTENCEÏAFFIRMEDó ó€ÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeò òÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓó óÌÓ  Óà@ àò òòòOPINIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Glenn€Bernard€Mann,€was€convicted€of€premeditated€firstÏdegree€murder,€aggravated€rape,€and€aggravated€burglary.€€At€the€conclusion€ofÏthe€penalty€phase€of€the€trial,€the€jury€found€two€aggravating€circumstances:€first,Ïthe€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€tortureÏor€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„204(I)(5)€(1991);€€second,€the€murder€was€committed€while€theÏappellant€was€engaged€in€committing€burglary,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(I)(7).€€The€jury€further€found€that€the€aggravating€circumstances€outweighedÏthe€evidence€of€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€andÍsentenced€the€appellant€to€death€by€electrocution.× ƒ5 ××  ×ÌÌà àIn€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€appellant€raises€the€following€issues€for€ourÏreview:ÌÓÓÌà8 à(1)à àWhether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction€forÏpremeditated€first€degree€murder;ÌÌà8 à(2)à àWhether€the€trial€court€incorrectly€instructed€the€juryÏregarding€the€laws€of€homicide;ÌÌà8 à(3)à àWhether€the€appellant's€trial€counsel€was€afforded€theÏappropriate€time,€assistance,€and€compensation;ÌÌà8 à(4)à àWhether€the€appellant's€statements€were€introducedÏagainst€him€in€violation€of€his€constitutional€rights;ÌÌà8 à(5)à àWhether€the€jury€was€properly€selected;ÌÌà8 à(6)à àWhether€the€trial€court€incorrectly€instructed€the€juryÏregarding€the€juryððs€consideration€of€mitigating€evidence;ÌÌà8 à(7)à àWhether€the€death€penalty€unconstitutionally€infringes€uponÏthe€appellant's€right€to€life;ÌÌà8 à(8)à àWhether€the€prosecutor€infringed€upon€the€appellant's€rightÏto€trial€by€offering€a€life€sentence€in€return€for€a€guilty€plea;ÌÌà8 à(9)à àWhether€the€Tennessee€death€penalty€statute€isÏunconstitutional.ÌÓÓÌHaving€carefully€considered€the€appellant's€claims,€we€find€no€reversible€errorÏand€thus€affirm€the€conviction€and€the€sentence€of€death.Ìò òÌ1.à àFACTSÌà àA.à àGuilt/Innocence€PhaseÌó óà àDuring€the€early€morning€hours€of€July€3,€1993,€Annie€Lou€Wilson€wasÏbrutally€murdered€in€her€home€in€Dyer€County,€Tennessee.€€She€was€sixty„twoÏyears€old.€€Dr.€O'Brien€C.€Smith,€Assistant€Medical€Examiner€for€Shelby€CountyÏand€Deputy€Chief€Medical€Examiner€for€Western€Tennessee,€testified€that€Ms.ÏWilson€died€as€a€result€of€multiple€injuries€to€the€head,€neck,€chest,€andÏabdomen.€€Dr.€Smith€opined€that€she€had€suffered€at€least€fifteen€blows€to€theÏhead€by€a€blunt€force,€resulting€in€injuries€including€lacerations,€bruises,€andÏabrasions.€€Dr.€Smith€testified€that€such€injuries€to€the€head€could,€in€someÏcases,€be€lethal€but,€in€this€case,€were€not€the€cause€of€death.€€Moreover,€Dr.ÏSmith€testified€that€examination€of€the€injuries€failed€to€reveal€whether€the€blowsÏto€the€head€rendered€Ms.€Wilson€unconscious.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€Dr.€Smith€found€injuries€to€Ms.ÏWilsonððs€neck€consistent€with€manual€strangulation,€but€also€excluded€theseÏinjuries€as€the€probable€cause€of€death.ÌÌà àRegarding€the€cause€of€death,€Dr.€Smith€testified€that€Ms.€Wilson€sufferedÏeleven€separate€knife€stab€wounds€to€a€three€inch€by€four€inch€area€of€the€chestÏoverlying€the€heart€and€lungs.€€These€stab€wounds€ranged€in€depth€from€justÏunder€one€inch€to€over€four€inches.€€One€wound€pierced€the€lung,× ƒ9 ××  ×€and€another,Ïdeeper€wound€penetrated€the€heart.€€Dr.€Smith€determined€that€either€woundÍwould€have€been€fatal,€resulting€in€death€anytime€from€several€minutes€to€anÏhour€following€the€infliction€of€the€wounds.€€Although€Dr.€Smith€could€notÏdetermine€whether€the€wounds€to€the€head€or€those€to€the€chest€occurred€first,Ïhis€testimony€indicated€that€Ms.€Wilsonððs€death€was€ultimately€caused€by€theÏstab€wounds€to€the€lung€and€heart,€aggravated€by€her€other€injuries.ÌÌà àAdditionally,€Dr.€Smith€found€fourteen€superficial€puncture€wounds€to€theÏleft€side€of€Ms.€Wilsonððs€abdomen.€€Moreover,€the€stab€wounds€caused€ribÏfractures.€€Dr.€Smith€also€observed€bruising€on€Ms.€Wilsonððs€left€wrist,€possibly€aÏdefensive€injury.€€However,€he€did€not€find€any€lacerations€or€cuts€on€Ms.ÏWilsonððs€hands€or€arms.€€Finally,€the€autopsy€revealed€a€laceration€of€theÏvaginal€tissues€caused€by€something€being€forced€into€the€victimððs€vagina.ÌÌà àKathleen€Epperson,€a€close€friend€of€the€victim,€testified€that,€on€Friday,ÏJuly€2,€1993,€she€and€another€friend,€Gene€Stafford,€met€Ms.€Wilson€at€the€WestÏTennessee€Opry€or€ð ðBoogie€Barn.ðð€€Ms.€Epperson€stated€that€the€three€of€themÏusually€went€dancing€at€the€Boogie€Barn€on€Friday€and€Saturday€nights.€€EitherÏMr.€Stafford€and€Ms.€Epperson€or€the€victim's€daughter€would€bring€Ms.€WilsonÏto€the€Boogie€Barn,€but€Mr.€Stafford€and€Ms.€Epperson€would€usually€drive€herÏhome.€€On€this€night,€they€remained€at€the€Boogie€Barn€until€it€closed€at€11:00Ïp.m.€€Mr.€Stafford€and€Ms.€Epperson€then€drove€Ms.€Wilson€home,€arriving€at€theÏvictimððs€home€at€approximately€11:30€p.m.€€When€Mr.€Stafford€and€Ms.ÏEpperson€dropped€her€off,€Ms.€Wilson€told€them€that€she€would€need€a€ride€toÏthe€Boogie€Barn€on€Saturday€night.€€ÌÌà àMs.€Epperson€further€testified€that,€whenever€she€and€Mr.€Stafford€wouldÏgive€Ms.€Wilson€a€ride€to€the€Boogie€Barn,€they€would€arrive€at€her€house€atÏapproximately€5:00€p.m.,€and€she€would€usually€be€waiting€for€them€on€the€frontÏporch.€€On€that€Saturday,€however,€Ms.€Wilson€was€not€on€the€porch.€€Ms.ÏEpperson€testified€that€she€looked€through€the€window€on€the€front€door€of€Ms.ÏWilsonððs€house,€but€did€not€see€the€victim€anywhere€inside.€€She€stated€that€sheÏand€Mr.€Stafford€assumed€that€the€victim's€daughter€had€given€her€a€ride.ÌÌà àLottie€McPherson,€the€victim's€daughter,€testified€that€she€last€saw€herÏmother€alive€when€she€dropped€her€off€at€the€Boogie€Barn€on€Friday,€July€2,Ï1993.€€She€called€her€mother€on€Saturday€afternoon€but€received€no€answer.€ÏShe€was€not€alarmed,€however,€because€her€mother€would€sometimes€go€out€toÏeat€with€friends€before€going€to€the€Boogie€Barn.€€Ms.€McPherson€also€calledÏher€mother€several€times€on€Sunday€morning€but,€again,€received€no€answer.€ÏAt€that€time,€she€thought€something€might€be€wrong,€because€her€mother€neverÏslept€that€late.€€Ms.€McPherson,€along€with€her€daughter„in„law,€DianeÏMcPherson,€went€to€the€victim's€house.€€When€she€arrived€at€her€motherððsÏhouse,€she€noticed€that€the€mail€was€still€in€the€mailbox,€which€was€unusual,Ïand€the€front€door€was€unlocked.€€When€she€went€inside€the€house,€she€sawÏher€mother€lying€on€the€floor€in€the€bedroom€to€the€left€of€the€bed.€€She€sawÏð ðblood€all€aroundðð€her€mother,€and€her€mother€was€cold€to€the€touch.€€DianeÏMcPherson€testified€that,€after€she€and€Lottie€McPherson€saw€the€victim,€theyÍcalled€911.× ƒ: ××  ×ÌÌà àTammy€Palmer,€a€neighbor€who€lived€four€houses€down€from€Ms.€Wilson,Ïalso€testified.€€She€related€that,€as€she€was€leaving€for€work€on€Saturday,€July€3,Ï1993,€at€approximately€5:00€a.m.,€she€noticed€a€black€male,€wearing€a€pair€ofÏorange€shorts,€walking€down€the€street.€€He€appeared€to€be€5'10"€to€6'€tall€and€œÌÌweighed›€180€to€200€lbs.€€She€stated€that,€when€she€came€out€of€her€house,€theÏman€stopped€for€a€few€seconds€and€looked€up€her€driveway€toward€her.€€ShortlyÏafter€the€murder,€the€police€asked€Ms.€Palmer€if€she€could€identify€the€man€sheÏhad€seen€from€a€group€of€photographs.€€Ms.€Palmer€selected€a€person€otherÏthan€the€appellant.€€However,€she€told€the€officers€that€she€was€unsure€if€theÏperson€in€the€chosen€photograph€was€actually€the€man€she€had€seen.€€SheÏinformed€the€officers€that€she€would€need€to€see€the€man€in€person€in€order€toÏpositively€identify€him.€€At€trial,€Ms.€Palmer€identified€the€appellant€as€the€manÏshe€had€seen.€€She€testified€that€she€did€not€know€the€appellant,€had€neverÏseen€him€prior€to€the€morning€of€the€murder,€and€had€not€seen€him€since€thatÏmorning€until€the€day€of€her€testimony.ÌÌà àWhen€Officer€Greg€Youree€of€the€Dyersburg€Police€Department€arrivedÏat€Ms.€Wilsonððs€house€on€the€morning€of€July€4,€1993,€he€observed€a€whiteÏfemale€lying€on€the€floor€in€the€bedroom€to€the€left€of€the€bed.€€He€testified€thatÍthe€body€was€covered€in€blood€ð ðfrom€head€to€toe.ðð€€Officer€Youree€immediatelyÏcalled€the€Criminal€Investigation€Division€(C.I.D.)€and€cordoned€off€the€propertyÏwith€crime€scene€tape.€€After€C.I.D.€arrived,€the€police€discovered€various€itemsÏnear€the€body,€including€the€victimððs€hearing€aid€in€a€carrying€case,€a€brokenÏceramic€or€plaster€cat,€a€blood€stained€paper€bag,€a€brassiere,€pieces€of€whiteÏunderwear,€and€a€blood€stained€Kleenex.€€Officer€Youree€and€several€otherÏofficers,€including€Investigator€Jeff€Holt,€then€began€a€canvass€of€theÏneighborhood.€€Officer€Youree€testified€that€the€appellant€was€sitting€on€the€frontÏporch€of€his€house,€which€was€about€six€houses€down€from€the€victimððs.€€TheÏappellant€told€Officer€Youree€that€he€and€his€wife€were€friends€of€Ms.€WilsonÏand,€on€previous€occasions,€had€eaten€dinner€at€her€house.€€The€appellantÏgave€Officer€Youree€and€Investigator€Holt€permission€to€search€his€house.€€TheyÏrecovered€a€pair€of€white€tennis€shoes€and€a€pair€of€shoestrings.̛̜Ìà àInvestigator€Jim€Porter€of€the€Dyersburg€Police€Department€testified€that,Ïpursuant€to€a€search€warrant,€he€obtained€blood€and€saliva€samples€from€theÏappellant.€€Porter€further€stated€that,€on€July€7,€1993,€he€and€Investigators€JoeÏMcDowell€and€Stan€Cavness€asked€the€appellant€and€a€number€of€his€familyÏmembers€to€accompany€them€to€the€police€station€for€questioning.€€InvestigatorÏPorter€testified€that€no€one€was€under€arrest€at€that€time.€€After€the€officersÏquestioned€LaTonya€Mann,€the€appellant's€wife,€she€signed€a€form€consentingÏto€the€search€of€her€house.€€During€this€search,€Investigator€Porter€retrieved€aÏkitchen€curtain€and€a€white€t„shirt.€€Following€an€interview€with€the€appellantÍlater€that€evening,€Investigators€Porter€and€Holt,€with€the€permission€of€Ms.ÏMann,€returned€once€again€to€the€appellant's€house€and€recovered€a€pair€ofÏorange€shorts,€a€blue€wash€cloth,€and€three€kitchen€knives.ÌÌà àInvestigator€Joe€McDowell€of€the€Dyersburg€Police€Department€testifiedÏthat€he€was€in€charge€of€this€case.€€He€was€called€to€the€scene€of€the€crime€onÏJuly€4,€1993,€at€approximately€9:50€a.m.€€He€testified€that€the€latch€on€Ms.ÏWilsonððs€front€door€was€bent,€indicating€that€the€door€had€been€forced€open.€€HeÏstated€that€the€living€room€area€of€her€house€appeared€to€be€undisturbed.€ÏWhen€he€entered€the€bedroom,€he€observed€Ms.€Wilson€lying€on€the€floor€nextÏto€the€bed.€€He€testified€that€she€was€on€her€back,€and€her€left€arm€was€raisedÏabove€her€forehead.€€She€was€wearing€a€nightgown,€the€front€of€which€was€tornÏor€cut.€€She€still€had€on€a€portion€of€her€underwear.€€Investigator€McDowellÏfurther€saw€what€appeared€to€be€blood€on€the€carpet,€wall,€and€bed.€€He€statedÏthat€he€retrieved€a€piece€of€linoleum€with€a€shoe€print€from€the€victim's€kitchenÏfloor.€€With€respect€to€the€policeððs€initial€canvass€of€the€neighborhood,€McDowellÏconfirmed€that€officers€obtained€a€statement€from€Tammy€Palmer,€including€aÏdescription€of€a€potential€suspect.€€Officer€McDowell€also€confirmed€that,€duringÏthe€initial€canvass,€the€appellant€consented€to€a€search€of€his€home.Ì̛̜à àMcDowell€additionally€testified€that,€on€July€7,€1993,€the€appellant€andÏvarious€members€of€the€appellant's€family€were€asked€to€come€to€the€policeÏstation€for€questioning.€€He€confirmed€that€these€individuals€were€not€underÍarrest€at€that€time.€€During€an€initial€interview€with€Investigators€McDowell€andÏCavness,€the€appellant€denied€any€involvement€in€the€murder.€€After€furtherÏquestioning,€however,€he€confessed.€€Investigator€Cavness€had€a€tape€recorderÏin€his€pocket€that€he€assumed€was€recording€their€conversation€with€theÏappellant.€€However,€after€the€interview,€Cavness€discovered€that€the€tapeÏrecorder€did€not€work.€€The€two€investigators€asked€the€appellant€if€he€wouldÏmind€giving€another€recorded€statement.€€At€first€the€appellant€declined,€butÏeventually€he€agreed€on€the€condition€that€they€allow€him€to€see€his€wife.€ÏInvestigator€Porter€brought€the€appellant's€wife€to€the€station.€€Following€a€briefÏencounter€between€the€appellant€and€his€wife,€during€which€the€appellant's€wifeÏcried,€the€appellant€gave€Investigator€McDowell€another€recorded€statement.€ÏMcDowell€had€a€tape€recorder€in€his€pocket,€and€there€was€a€tape€recorder€onÏthe€table€in€the€room€where€the€interview€took€place.ÌÌà àInvestigator€Holt€testified€that,€on€July€7,€1993,€he€was€standing€outsideÏthe€interview€room€while€Investigators€McDowell€and€Cavness€questioned€theÏappellant.€€From€his€position€in€the€hall,€Holt€was€able€to€overhear€theÏconversation€between€the€investigators€and€the€appellant.€€He€asserted€thatÏneither€McDowell€nor€Cavness€threatened€the€appellant€or€otherwise€appliedÏcoercive€techniques€of€interrogation.€€Investigator€Porter€was€also€in€the€hallÏduring€the€questioning€of€the€appellant.€€He€also€testified€that€he€did€not€hearÏthe€investigators€threaten€the€appellant.̛̜à àThe€following€is€a€summation€of€the€appellantððs€recorded€confession:× ƒ< ××  ×ÌÓӜ̛à8 àà àOn€the€morning€of€July€3rd,€1993,€the€appellant€woke€upÏand€decided€to€walk€around€the€neighborhood.€€He€was€wearingÏred€shorts,€white€ð ðK„Swissðð€tennis€shoes,€and€no€shirt.€€He€hadÏexperienced€strange€feelings€or€urges€in€the€past€and€was€feelingÏð ðfunnyðð€that€morning.€€As€he€walked€through€the€neighborhood,€theÏappellant€saw€a€woman€standing€in€her€driveway.€€He€continuedÏwalking€and,€at€some€point,€decided€to€go€to€the€victim's€houseÏand€steal€her€television€set.€€He€planned€to€pawn€the€television€setÏfor€rent€money.ÌÌà8 àà àHe€arrived€at€Ms.€Wilsonððs€home€at€approximately€6:00€a.m.€ÏHe€knocked€on€the€door€several€times,€and,€when€he€received€noÏanswer,€he€shoved€it€open€with€his€shoulder.€€As€he€headedÏtoward€the€T.V.,€Ms.€Wilson€came€out€of€her€bedroom.€€TheÏappellant€grabbed€a€sheet€from€a€nearby€couch€and€threw€it€overÏMs.€Wilsonððs€head.€€He€then€began€to€run€toward€the€front€door.€ÏHowever,€when€he€reached€the€front€door,€Ms.€Wilson€called€hisÏname.€€The€appellant€then€pushed€her€into€the€bedroom€and€ontoÏthe€bed.ÌÓ ` ÜŽX¹(0*ŒX ÓÌà8 àà àMs.€Wilson€reached€for€her€hearing€aid,€but€the€appellantÏknocked€it€out€of€her€hand.€€Because€she€was€ð ðholleringðð€andÏcalling€his€name,€the€appellant€grabbed€a€sheet€from€the€bed€andÏcovered€Ms.€Wilsonððs€face.€€He€attempted€to€hold€her€down€byÏplacing€his€hand€around€her€neck.€€The€appellant€then€tore€off€theÏvictimððs€underwear,€stuck€his€two€middle€fingers€inside€her€vagina,Ïand€masturbated.€€Ms.€Wilson€continued€to€yell€and€call€his€name,Ïso€the€appellant€grabbed€a€ceramic€statue€of€a€cat€and€hit€her€overÏthe€head.€€The€appellant€stated€that€he€thought€he€hit€Ms.€WilsonÏin€the€head€twice,€knocking€her€to€the€floor€on€the€left€side€of€theÏbed.ÌÌà8 àà àWhile€Ms.€Wilson€was€lying€on€the€floor,€the€appellant€ran€toÏthe€kitchen€and€obtained€a€"thick€blade€knife."€€The€appellantÏstated€that€the€victim€was€still€conscious€at€this€time€and€was€stillÏcalling€out€his€name.€€Upon€returning,€the€appellant€stabbed€Ms.ÏWilson€in€the€chest.€€He€stabbed€her€several€times,€because,€atÏfirst,€the€knife€ð ðwouldnððt€go€in.ðð€€The€appellant€then€ð ðpulled€the€knifeÏout,€got€up€and€went€home.ðð€€His€hands€and€his€shorts€wereÏstained€with€blood.ÌÌà8 àà àWhen€he€arrived€at€home,€his€wife€woke€up.€€The€appellantÏdid€not€tell€his€wife€where€he€had€been€or€what€he€had€done,× ƒ= ××  ×€andÏshe€did€not€see€any€blood.€€He€went€to€the€bathroom€and€washedÏhis€hands€with€a€blue€wash€cloth.€€He€then€went€to€bed.€€TheÏappellant€initially€claimed€that€he€burned€the€shorts€he€wasÏwearing,€but€later€recanted€his€story.€€He€also€stated€that€heÏdiscarded€the€knife€near€a€levee.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€appellant€asserted€that€he€did€not€want€to€kill€Ms.ÏWilson;€he€only€wanted€to€steal€her€television.€€He€explained€thatÏhe€initially€threw€a€sheet€over€Ms.€Wilsonððs€head€so€that€he€couldÏleave€before€she€identified€him.€€Finally,€the€appellant€stated€thatÏhe€was€not€on€any€kind€of€drug€at€the€time€of€the€murder.€€He€toldÏInvestigator€McDowell€that€he€had€a€problem€and€needed€help.ÌÓÓÌà àLinda€Littlejohn,€a€forensic€specialist€in€shoe€and€tire€track€comparisons,Ïfiber€comparisons,€and€physical€comparisons,€employed€by€the€TennesseeÏBureau€of€Investigation€(T.B.I.),€performed€a€shoe€track€comparison€on€the€whiteÏtennis€shoes€recovered€from€the€appellant's€house€and€a€partial€foot€print€on€aÏpiece€of€linoleum€recovered€from€the€victim's€house.€€Ms.€Littlejohn€determinedÏthat€the€shoes€were€consistent€in€size,€shape,€and€tread€design€with€the€print€onÏthe€linoleum.€€She€concluded€that€either€shoe€could€have€made€the€print.€ÏHowever,€Ms.€Littlejohn€could€not€find€any€individual€characteristics,€such€asÏcuts,€tears,€or€wear€patterns,€on€the€shoes€and€could€not,€therefore,€specificallyÏmatch€a€shoe€with€the€print.€€Ms.€Littlejohn€also€compared€the€three€knivesÏrecovered€from€the€appellant's€house€with€the€cuts€in€the€victimððs€nightgown€andÏconcluded€that€any€of€the€knives€could€have€made€the€cuts.€€Finally,€she€testifiedÏthat€she€found€no€evidence€of€fiber€transfers€from€another€source€onto€theÏvictim's€clothing€or€bedding.ÌÌà àSamera€Zavaro,€a€serology€specialist€with€the€T.B.I.,€testified€that€sheÏfound€human€blood€on€one€of€the€white€tennis€shoes.€€However,€the€quantityÏwas€insufficient€to€conduct€further€tests.€€She€found€no€blood€on€the€orangeÏshorts€recovered€from€the€appellantððs€house.€€She€did€find€human€blood€on€aÏblue€wash€cloth,€also€recovered€from€the€appellantððs€house.€€However,€she€didÏnot€conduct€further€tests,€instead€preserving€the€blood€for€a€DNA€analysis.€€SheÏfound€blood€on€a€ceramic€cat€removed€from€the€victimððs€house.€€She€concludedÏthat€the€blood€on€the€cat€was€consistent€with€the€victim's€blood.€€Finally,€Ms.ÏZavaro€found€semen€and€spermatozoal€in€combed€pubic€hair€obtained€from€theÏvictimððs€body.€€Margaret€Bash,€a€forensic€DNA€analyst€with€the€T.B.I.,€was€onlyÏable€to€perform€adequate€DNA€analyses€on€a€pair€of€the€appellant's€socks€and€aÏpair€of€red€shorts.€€Ms.€Bash€found€blood€on€these€items€matching€that€of€PatrickÏSweatt,€an€individual€with€whom€the€appellant€had€fought€on€July€1,€1993.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€presented€no€evidence€at€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial.ÌÌÌà àò òB.à àPenalty€Phaseó óÌà àDuring€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial,€Dr.€Smith€again€testified€for€theÏState.€€He€stated€that€the€fifteen€blows€to€Ms.€Wilsonððs€head€were€not€fatal€andÏwere€probably€ð ðinsufficient€to€cause€unconsciousness.ðð€€Nevertheless,€theÏblows€would€have€been€severely€painful€and€would€have€caused€profuseÏbleeding.€€€Additionally,€because€the€force€of€the€blows€was€moderate€to€œsevere,›Íthe€blows€would€have€produced€a€large€amount€of€medium€velocity€bloodÏspatter.€€However,€because€the€photographs€and€diagram€of€the€crime€sceneÏdid€not€reflect€the€expected€blood€spatter,€Dr.€Smith€stated€that€the€victim's€headÏwas€probably€wrapped€in€a€blanket.× ƒ> ××  ×€€Smith€also€observed€that€manualÏstrangulation,€reflected€by€the€bruises€on€the€victim's€neck,€would€have€beenÏpainful,€involving€ð ðextreme€distress€as€[the€victim€became]€hungry€for€air.ðð€ÏMoreover,€Dr.€Smith€testified€that€the€stab€wounds€in€the€victimððs€heart€and€lungsÏwould€have€been€painful,€would€have€interfered€with€Ms.€Wilsonððs€ability€toÏbreathe,€and€would€have€caused€some€bleeding.€€The€puncture€wounds€in€theÏabdomen,€although€not€fatal,€would€have€caused€moderate€pain€and€a€smallÏamount€of€bleeding.€€Dr.€Smith€opined€that€Ms.€Wilson€could€have€survivedÏminutes€or€an€hour€after€the€stabbings.€€He€testified€that€all€of€the€wounds€wereÏinflicted€prior€to€Ms.€Wilsonððs€death.€€Finally,€although€he€could€not€positivelyÏidentify€the€source€of€blood€patterns€on€the€victims€underwear,€legs,€and€feet,ÏDr.€Smith€stated€that€the€œÌÌÌÌÌÌpatterns›€indicated€that€the€victim€was€in€an€upright€position€during€the€inflictionÍof€the€source€wounds.œ× ƒ? ××  ×›ÌÌÌà àDr.€Chris€Sperry,€the€Deputy€Chief€Medical€Examiner€for€Fulton€County,ÏGeorgia,€testified€on€behalf€of€the€appellant.€€He€opined€that€the€initial€blows€toÏthe€head€rendered€Ms.€Wilson€unconscious.€€He€arrived€at€this€conclusion€forÏtwo€reasons:€first,€the€stab€wounds€in€the€victimððs€chest€and€the€stab€wounds€inÏthe€victimððs€abdomen€were€clustered€together;€and€two,€there€were€no€cuts€onÏthe€victimððs€arms€or€hands.€€He€stated€that,€if€the€victim€had€been€consciousÏduring€the€stabbings,€she€probably€would€have€tried€to€defend€herself.€€In€theÏprocess,€she€would€have€sustained€injuries€to€the€arms€and€hands.€€There€wasÏno€evidence€that€the€victimððs€arms€were€tied€down.€€Finally,€if€the€victim€wasÏunconscious€during€the€stabbings,€she€did€not€feel€the€pain€caused€by€theÏvarious€stab€wounds.ÌÌà àWilliam€Redick,€Jr.,€the€director€of€the€Capital€Case€Resource€Center,Ïtestified€on€behalf€of€the€appellant.€€He€stated€that€the€imposition€of€the€deathÏpenalty€costs€the€state€approximately€$5€million.€€The€incarceration€of€aÏdefendant€for€life€costs€$1€million.€€Mr.€Redick€further€testified€that€a€defendantÏserving€a€life€sentence€would€not€be€eligible€for€parole€until€he€had€beenÏincarcerated€for€twenty„five€years.€€Finally,€Mr.€Redick€admitted€that€he€does€notÏbelieve€any€case€warrants€the€imposition€of€a€sentence€of€death.ÌÌà àLaTonya€Mann,€the€appellant's€wife,€testified€that€she€and€the€appellantÏhad€been€married€for€a€little€more€than€a€year.€€She€told€the€jury€that€theÏappellant€was€a€kind€and€considerate€husband.€€Ms.€Mann€made€an€emotionalÏplea€for€her€husbandððs€life.ÌÌà àJohnnie€Mae€Mann,€the€appellant's€mother,€testified€that€she€has€tenÏliving€children.€€The€appellant€is€her€ninth€child.€€At€school,€he€was€a€slowÏlearner€and€was€placed€in€special€education€classes.€€Ms.€Mann€testified€thatÏthe€appellant€dropped€out€of€school€in€the€ninth€grade.€€The€appellant€lived€withÏhis€parents€until€he€married.€€Ms.€Mann€asked€the€jury€to€forgive€her€son€andÏgrant€him€a€second€chance.€€She€stated€that€she€has€already€lost€three€childrenÏand€does€not€want€to€lose€another.ÌÌà àJohn€Herman€Mann,€the€appellant's€father,€testified€that€he€served€as€theÏpreacher€for€the€Original€Church€of€Jesus€Christ€in€Dyersburg€for€nineteenÏyears.€€He€told€the€jury€that€he€is€sorry€that€Ms.€Wilson€was€killed.€€However,€heÍasserted€that€killing€his€son€would€not€correct€that€wrong.€€He€asked€the€jurors€toÏlook€into€their€hearts€and€spare€a€life€instead€of€taking€one.€€ÌÌò ò2.à àANALYSISÌó óà àò òÓÓA.à8 àSufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÌÌÓÓó óà àThe€appellant€claims€that,€although€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€couldÏsupport€a€finding€of€felony€murder€or€second€degree€murder,€the€evidence€isÏinsufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder.€ÏSpecifically,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€State€did€not€prove€the€requisiteÏelements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€He€asserts€that€the€appellantððsÏstate€of€mind€at€the€time€of€the€killing€precluded€premeditation€and€deliberation.€ÏMoreover,€the€appellant€argues€that,€assuming€there€was€a€design€to€kill,€noÏmore€than€an€instant€passed€between€its€formulation€and€its€execution.€ÏTherefore,€the€appellant€could€not€have€engaged€in€sufficient€deliberation€priorÏto€the€killing.€€The€State€contends€that,€although€the€appellant€only€planned€aÏburglary€when€he€entered€Ms.€Wilsonððs€house,€once€inside€the€house€he€didÏindeed€carry€out€a€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing.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€appealÏa€convicted€defendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€isÏinsufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€The€defendantÏmust€establish€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€so€deficient€that€noÏ"reasonable€trier€of€fact"€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offenseÍbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.Ï2781,€2789€(1979);€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€115€S.Ct.€743€(1995);€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).ÌÌà àMoreover,€an€appellate€court€may€neither€reweigh€nor€reevaluate€theÏevidence€when€determining€its€sufficiency.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,Ï835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€theÏweight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raisedÏby€the€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€and€not€the€appellate€courts.€ÏòòState€v.€Pruettóó,€788€S.W.2d€559,€561€(Tenn.€1990).€€"A€jury€verdict€approved€byÏthe€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State€and€resolvesÏall€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State's€theory."€€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,Ï410€(Tenn.€1983),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€465€U.S.€1073,€104€S.Ct.€1429€(1984).€€TheÏState€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÏreasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòId.óó€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.ÏHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€507€U.S.€954,€113€S.Ct.Ï1368€(1993).ÌÌà àThe€State€may€prove€a€criminal€offense€by€direct€evidence,€circumstantialÏevidence,€or€a€combination€of€the€two.€€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€899„900€(Tenn.€1987).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€541€(Tenn.€1992)Ï(ð ðthe€cases€have€long€recognized€that€the€necessary€elements€of€first„degreeÏmurder€may€be€shown€by€circumstantial€evidenceðð).€€Before€a€jury€may€convict€aÏdefendant€of€a€criminal€offense€based€upon€circumstantial€evidence€alone,€theÍfacts€and€circumstances€"must€be€so€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€everyÏother€reasonable€hypothesis€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant,€and€that€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt."€€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€470€S.W.2d€610,€612€(Tenn.€1971).€€€ÏòòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€577€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€As€inÏthe€case€of€direct€evidence,€the€weight€to€be€given€circumstantial€evidence€andÏð ððð[t]he€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€such€evidence,€and€the€extent€to€which€theÏcircumstances€are€consistent€with€guilt€and€inconsistent€with€innocence,€areÏquestions€primarily€for€the€jury.ðððð€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€313€S.W.2d€451,€457€(Tenn.Ï1958)(citation€omitted).€€In€this€case,€both€direct€and€circumstantial€evidenceÏwas€available€for€the€jury's€consideration.× ƒA ××  ×ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€this€offense,€the€relevant€statute€defined€first€degree€murderÏas€"[a]n€intentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing€of€another."€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(1991).€€A€person€acts€intentionally€ð ðwith€respect€to€theÏnature€of€the€conduct€or€to€a€result€of€the€conduct€when€it€is€the€personððsÏconscious€objective€or€desire€to€engage€in€the€conduct€or€cause€the€result."€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(18)€(1991).€€Additionally,€premeditationÏnecessitates€"a€previously€formed€design€or€intent€to€kill,"€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844ÏS.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992),€and€"the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment,"ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201(b)(2)€(1991).€€Deliberation€requires€a€"coolÏpurpose"€and€the€absence€of€"passion€or€provocation."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201(b)(1)€and€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.× ƒB ××  ×ÌÌà àOnce€a€homicide€has€been€proven,€it€is€presumed€to€be€a€second€degreeÏmurder,€and€the€State€has€the€burden€of€establishing€premeditation€andÏdeliberation.€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€543.€€Again,€although€the€jury€may€notÏengage€in€speculation,€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995),€the€jury€may€infer€premeditation€andÏdeliberation€from€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€killing.€€òòGentryóó,€881ÏS.W.2d€at€3;€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€506€S.W.2d€175,€178€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€OurÏsupreme€court€has€delineated€several€circumstances€which€may€be€indicative€ofÏpremeditation€and€deliberation,€including€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€anÏunarmed€victim,€the€fact€that€the€killing€was€particularly€cruel,€declarations€byÏthe€defendant€of€his€intent€to€kill€the€victim,€and€the€making€of€preparationsÏbefore€the€killing€for€the€purpose€of€concealing€the€crime.€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€atÏ541„542.€€This€court€has€also€recently€noted€several€factors€from€which€the€juryÏmay€infer€the€two€elements,€including€planning€activity€by€the€defendant€beforeÏthe€killing,€evidence€concerning€the€defendantððs€motive,€and€the€nature€of€theÏkilling.€€€òòBordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€222€(òòquotingóó€2€W.€LaFave€and€A.€Scott,€Jr.,ÏòòSubstantive€Criminal€Lawóó€ðð€7.7€(1986)).ÌÌà àInitially,€the€record€supports€an€inference€that€the€appellant€killed€Ms.ÍWilson€because€she€was€able€to€identify€him.€€Nevertheless,€the€appellantÏsuggests€that,€at€the€time€of€the€killing,€he€lacked€the€mental€capacity€to€eitherÏpremeditate€or€deliberate.€€He€contends€that€ð ðhe€was€suffering€from€an€ððextremeÏmental€or€emotional€disturbanceðð€...€he€was€ððsubstantially€impairedðð€mentallyððÏand,€accordingly,€could€not€have€killed€"upon€reflection,€'without€passion€orÏprovocation,'€and€otherwise€free€from€the€influence€of€excitement."€€òòGentryóó,€881ÏS.W.2d€at€4.€€The€record€contains€some€evidence,€essentially€the€appellant'sÏown€statements€to€the€police,€indicating€that,€at€the€time€of€the€killing,€theÏappellant€was€experiencing€a€ð ðstrange€feelingðð€over€which€he€had€no€control.€ÏHowever,€at€trial,€the€appellant€introduced€no€expert€testimony€in€support€of€hisÏargument.× ƒD ××  ×€€Again,€the€weight€assigned€to€the€evidence€is€a€question€for€theÏjury.€€Therefore,€on€appeal,€this€court€will€not€disturb€the€juryððs€determination,Ïreflected€in€its€verdict,€that€the€appellant€was€not€experiencing€psychologicalÏproblems€sufficient€to€preclude€premeditation€and€deliberation.ÌÌà àAlternatively,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€formation€of€the€plan€to€killÏand€the€administration€of€the€fatal€blows€occurred€simultaneously.€€In€support€ofÏhis€argument,€the€appellant€refers€to€his€statement€to€the€police.€€In€hisÏstatement,€the€appellant€claimed€that€he€did€not€intend€to€kill€Ms.€Wilson€whenÏhe€entered€her€house.€€According€to€the€appellant,€when€the€victim€called€hisÏname,€he€instinctively€hit€her€with€the€ceramic€cat.€€The€appellant€asserts€that,Íalthough€Dr.€Smith€testified€that€the€fatal€wounds€resulted€from€the€subsequentÏstabbings,€Dr.€Smith€also€testified€that€the€initial€blows€to€Ms.€Wilsonððs€headÏwere€potentially€fatal.€€Again,€before€a€jury€may€convict€a€defendant€ofÏpremeditated€first€degree€murder,€it€must€find€that€the€defendant€consciouslyÏengaged€in€conduct€which€resulted€in€the€death€of€the€victim,€òòBordisóó,€905ÏS.W.2d€at€221,€and€killed€"upon€reflection,€'without€passion€or€provocation,'€andÏotherwise€free€from€the€influence€of€excitement."€€òòGentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€at€4.€€òòSeeÏalsoóó€òòState€v.€Brooksóó,€880€S.W.2d€390,€392„93€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòperm.€toÏappeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994)€("the€jury€must€find€that€the€defendant€formed€theÏintent€to€kill€prior€to€the€killing,€i.e.,€premeditation,€and€that€the€defendant€killedÏwith€coolness€and€reflection,€i.e.,€deliberation").€€"While€it€remains€true€that€noÏspecific€length€of€time€is€required€for€the€formation€of€a€cool,€dispassionateÏintent€to€kill,€òòBrownóó€requires€more€than€a€'split„second'€of€reflection€in€order€toÏsatisfy€the€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation."€€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€atÏ147.× ƒE ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€record,€including€the€appellantððs€statement€to€the€police,€reveals€thatÏthe€appellant€had€more€than€a€ð ðsplit„secondðð€in€which€to€form€the€requisiteÏelements.€€Between€the€time€the€victim€called€out€the€appellant's€name€and€theÏtime€the€appellant€hit€the€victim€with€the€ceramic€cat,€the€appellant€pushed€Ms.ÏWilson€from€the€living€room€into€the€adjacent€bedroom,€pushed€her€onto€theÏbed,€threw€a€sheet€over€her€head,€tore€her€underwear,€and,€arguably,€rapedÍher.× ƒG ××  ×€€In€any€event,€the€record€supports€the€Stateððs€position€that€the€stabbingsÏwere,€in€fact,€the€fatal€blows.€€The€appellant€did€not€stab€the€victim€until€after€heÏbeat€her,€raped€her,€and,€deciding€that€an€additional€tool€was€needed€toÏaccomplish€the€murder,€obtained€a€knife€from€the€kitchen.€€The€appellantððsÏstatement€to€the€police€suggests€that,€as€he€retrieved€the€knife€from€the€kitchen,ÏMs.€Wilson€continued€to€call€his€name.€€Accordingly,€the€jury€could€very€wellÏhave€concluded€that€the€appellant€had€ample€opportunity€to€premeditate€andÏdeliberate€Ms.€Wilsonððs€death.ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€act€of€obtaining€a€knife€from€the€kitchen€required€a€certainÏdegree€of€coolness€and€reflection.€€Additionally,€the€appellant€stated€to€theÏpolice€that,€after€killing€Ms.€Wilson,€he€went€home,€cleaned€off€the€blood,€andÏwent€to€bed.€€"Calmness€immediately€after€a€killing€may€be€evidence€of€a€cool,Ïdispassionate,€premeditated€murder."€€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€148€(òòcitingóó€òòState€v.ÏBrowningóó,€666€S.W.2d€80,€84€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983),€and€òòSneed€v.€Stateóó,€546ÏS.W.2d€254,€258€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976)).ÌÌà àAccordingly,€contrary€to€the€appellantððs€assertion,€the€existence€ofÏrepeated€blows€to€the€victim€was€not€the€only€evidence€at€trial€supporting€aÏfinding€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€542Ï(ð ð[l]ogically,€of€course,€the€fact€that€repeated€blows€...€were€inflicted€on€the€victimÏis€not€sufficient,€by€itself,€to€establish€first„degree€murder").× ƒH ××  ×€€Having€reviewedÏthe€proof€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€isÏsufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict.€€This€issue,€therefore,€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓÓà àB.à8 àÓÓInstructions€on€Homicideó óÌà àThe€appellant€raises€the€following€issues€concerning€the€trial€court'sÏinstructions€on€the€laws€of€homicide:€€the€trial€court€should€have€instructed€theÏjury€on€the€presumption€of€second€degree€murder;€the€trial€court€erred€in€givingÏthe€jury€sequential€instructions€on€first€degree€murder,€second€degree€murder,Ïand€voluntary€manslaughter;€the€trial€court€failed€to€define€"passion";€and€theÏtrial€court€erroneously€defined€"intentional."€€These€issues€will€be€addressed€inÏorder€below.× ƒI ××  ×ÌÌà àà àò òI.ó ó€€ò òPresumption€of€Second€Degree€Murderó óÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€instructed€the€juryÏthat€the€law€presumes€a€homicide€to€be€a€second€degree€murder,€and€the€StateÏmust€prove€the€premeditation€and€deliberation€necessary€to€elevate€the€crime€toÏfirst€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€543.€€The€State€argues€that€theÏtrial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€according€to€the€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Haynesóó,Ï720€S.W.2d€76,€85€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1986).€ÏSpecifically,€the€State€notes,€and€we€agree,€that€the€court€correctly€instructed€theÏjury€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€second€degree€murder.× ƒJ ××  ×€€Previously,Ïfaced€with€an€argument€identical€to€the€appellantððs,€we€held€that€"[w]hen€juryÏinstructions€given€are€full,€fair,€and€accurately€state€the€law,€there€is€noÏrequirement€that€special€instructions€be€given."€€òòState€v.€Kelleyóó,€683€S.W.2d€1,€6Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1984)€(òòcitingóó€òòState€v.ÏChestnutóó,€643€S.W.2d€343,€352€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982)).× ƒK ××  ×€€Accordingly,€thisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àò òii.ó ó€€ò òSequential€Instructionsó óÌà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€€the€trial€court€erred€in€giving€sequentialÏinstructions€on€first€degree€murder,€second€degree€murder,€and€voluntaryÏmanslaughter.€€We€disagree.€€This€court€has€repeatedly€upheld€"acquittal„first"Ïinstructions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Rainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€376,€381„82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€McPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€365,Ï375€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.ÏRutherfordóó,€876€S.W.2d€118,€119„20€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Beckhamóó,€No.€02C01„9406„CR„00107€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Sept.€27,€1995).€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ìò òÌà àà àiii.ó ó€€ò òDefinition€of€"Passion"ó óÌà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court's€instruction€on€firstÏdegree€murder€was€erroneous,€because€the€instruction€did€not€include€theÏdefinition€of€"passion."€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€as€follows:€€"The€mentalÏstate€of€the€accused€at€the€time€he€allegedly€decided€to€kill€must€be€carefullyÏconsidered€in€order€to€determine€whether€the€accused€was€sufficiently€free€fromÏexcitement€and€passion€as€to€be€capable€of€premeditation."€€The€State€assertsÏthat€the€trial€court€employed€the€ordinary€usage€of€the€word€"passion,"€and,Ïaccordingly,€further€instruction€was€unnecessary.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€does€not€offer€any€authority€which€requires€the€trial€court€toÏdefine€"passion."€€Moreover,€although€Tennessee€courts€have€defined€the€term,Íòòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Burlingtonóó,€532€S.W.2d€556,€560€(Tenn.€1976),€we€have€beenÏunable€to€find€any€case€which€requires€a€court€to€provide€that€definition.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€word€ð ðpassionðð€is€ð ðin€common€use€and€can€be€understood€byÏpeople€of€ordinary€intelligence.ðð€€òòRainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€383.€€In€the€absence€ofÏanything€in€the€charge€to€obscure€the€meaning€of€such€terms,€it€is€not€necessaryÏfor€the€court€to€define€or€explain€them.€€òòIdóó.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Bradenóó,€867ÏS.W.2d€750,€761€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993).€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àò òiv.ó ó€€ò òDefinition€of€"intentional"ó óÌà àFinally,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court's€instruction€definingÏ"intentional"€created€the€possibility€of€a€non„unanimous€jury€verdict.€€The€trialÏcourt,€in€defining€ð ðintentional,ðð€quoted€verbatim€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(18).€€In€essence,€the€trial€judge€instructed€the€jury€that€a€person€actsÏð ðintentionallyðð€when€that€person€acts€with€a€conscious€objective€either€(1)€toÏcause€a€particular€result€or€(2)€to€engage€in€particular€conduct.€€òòSee€alsoóó€T.P.I.ÏCrim.€No.€2.08.€€The€appellant€claims€that€the€trial€courtððs€disjunctive€instructionÏpermitted€the€jury,€in€convicting€the€appellant€of€premeditated€first€degreeÏmurder,€to€choose€either€general€intent€or€specific€intent.€€Therefore,€accordingÏto€the€appellant,€it€is€impossible€to€determine€whether€the€jury€unanimouslyÏfound€that€the€appellant€intended€to€cause€the€result,€i.e.,€specific€intent,€ratherÏthan€simply€engage€in€the€conduct,€i.e.,€general€intent.× ƒO ××  ×ÌÌà àAs€the€appellant€correctly€observes€in€his€brief,€the€legislature€hasÏabandoned€the€ð ðconfusing€distinction€between€general€and€specific€intent.ðð€ÏSentencing€Commission€Comments,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„301€(1991).€ÏThis€court€is€unconvinced€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(18),€in€definingÏð ðintentional,ðð€perpetuates€this€distinction.€€Rather,€because€ð ðintentionalðð€offensesÏinclude€both€offenses€which€only€require€particular€conduct,€e.g.,€rape€andÏburglary,€and€offenses€which€also€require€a€particular€result,€e.g.,€homicide,€theÏdefinition€of€ð ðintentionalðð€must€encompass€both€factual€circumstances.€€Indeed,Ïin€the€instant€case,€the€appellant€was€charged€with€aggravated€rape€andÏaggravated€burglary€in€addition€to€first€degree€murder.ÌÌà àWe€acknowledge€that€ð ð[s]imply€reading€a€statute€to€the€jury,€when€theÏstatute€is€ambiguous€and€open€to€more€than€one€interpretation,€does€not€satisfyÏððthe€demands€of€justiceðð€or€the€accusedððs€constitutional€right€of€trial€by€jury.ðð€ÏòòRainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€382.€€However,€in€this€case,€the€trial€courtððs€instructionsÏconcerning€premeditated€first€degree€murder€clarified€any€ambiguity€inherent€inÍTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(18).€€The€trial€court€gave€the€jury€the€followingÏinstruction:ÌÓÓà8 àFor€you€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€[premeditated€first€degreeÏmurder],€the€State€must€have€proven€to€you,€the€jury,€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€the€existence€of€the€following€essentialÏelements.€...€that€the€killing€was€premeditated.€...€òòPremeditationÏmeans€that€the€intent€to€kill€must€have€been€formed€prior€to€the€actÏitselfóó.ÌÓÓÌ(Emphasis€added).€€As€the€instruction€states,€in€order€to€convict€the€appellant€ofÏpremeditated€first€degree€murder,€the€jury€was€required€to€find€not€only€that€heÏintended€to€engage€in€the€act,€i.e.,€the€assault,€but€also€that€he€intended€toÏcause€the€result,€i.e.,€Ms.€Wilsonððs€death.€€The€trial€court€correctly€instructed€theÏjury€according€to€the€laws€of€this€state.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÓÓ€ò òC.à8 àTrial€Counselððs€Compensation,€Services,€and€Time€to€PrepareÏfor€TrialÌÓÓó óÌà àIn€his€next€issue,€the€appellant€contends€that€his€trial€counsel€was€notÏgiven€the€compensation,€time,€or€services€necessary€to€provide€an€adequateÏdefense€pursuant€to€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€constitutions.€ÏSpecifically,€the€appellant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€denied€motionsÏfor€continuances,€denied€motions€for€compensation,€denied€motions€forÏappointment€of€co„counsel,€and€denied€motions€for€the€provision€of€expertÏservices.€€The€State€contends€that€the€trial€court€acted€properly€and€within€theÏconfines€of€the€law.€€ÌÌà àA€brief€summary€of€the€pre„trial€proceedings€is€helpful€in€reviewing€thisÏissue.€€The€indictment€was€returned€against€the€appellant€on€August€9,€1993.€ÏThe€appellant€retained€counsel,€and€his€retained€counsel€appeared€before€theÏcourt€for€the€arraignment€of€the€appellant€on€August€24,€1993.€€AlthoughÏoriginally€scheduled€for€November€30,€1993,€the€trial€was€continued€untilÏFebruary€1,€1994.ÌÌÌà àOn€January€27,€1994,€the€court€again€continued€the€trial€until€May€3,Ï1994.€€On€that€same€day,€the€court€granted€the€appellant's€motion€for€aÏdeclaration€of€indigency,€but€denied€counsel's€motion€for€compensation.€€TheÏcourt€stated€that€it€was€under€a€duty€to€appoint€the€public€defender€beforeÏappointing€or€compensating€private€counsel.× ƒP ××  ×€€However,€there€was€neither€aÏmotion€for€the€appointment€of€the€public€defender€nor€a€motion€for€withdrawal€ofÏprivate€counsel€before€the€court€at€that€time.€€The€public€defender€was€notÏappointed€until€April€8,€1994.ÌÌà àDuring€an€ex€parte€hearing€on€January€27,€1994,€the€court€denied€theÏappellant's€motion€for€a€jury€statistician€and€a€mitigation€specialist.€€The€courtÏheld€that€the€Constitution€does€not€require€the€appointment€of€either€expert,€andÍthe€court€noted€that€the€investigator€already€appointed€could€perform€the€sameÏkind€of€work€as€a€mitigation€specialist.€€On€January€28,€1994,€the€courtÏauthorized€$3,000€for€the€investigative€services€of€Terry€W.€Sweat€and€GailÏHedrick,€and€$3,000€for€the€psychological€services€of€Dr.€Gillian€Blair.× ƒQ ××  ×€€On€theÏsame€day,€the€court€denied€a€request€for€a€neuropharmacologist,€a€statistician,Ïand€a€forensic€expert,€because€the€appellant€failed€to€indicate€who€would€beÏperforming€these€services€and€how€much€compensation€would€be€required.€€OnÏApril€8,€1994,€the€court€authorized€an€additional€$1,500€for€the€investigativeÏservices€of€Terry€W.€Sweat.€€On€May€27,€1994,€the€court€granted€the€appellant'sÏmotion€for€$3,000€for€the€services€of€Dr.€Chris€Sperry,€an€expert€pathologist.ÌÌà àOn€May€3,€1994,€the€trial€court€continued€the€trial€until€May€31,€1994.€€TheÏcourt,€however,€denied€motions€for€further€continuances€on€May€13€,€May€18,Ïand€May€31,€1994.€€The€trial€court€also€denied€the€appellant's€motion€for€aÏcontinuance€following€the€Stateððs€presentation€of€proof€at€the€sentencing€phaseÏof€the€trial.ÌÌà àò òà àI.ó ó€€ò òTime€to€Prepare€ó óÌà àThe€appellant€claims€that€his€counsel€was€not€afforded€adequate€time€toÏprepare€for€trial.€€Primarily,€he€contends€that€co„counsel€(i.e.€the€publicÏdefender)€was€not€appointed€until€less€than€two€months€prior€to€trial,€that€leadÏcounsel€and€co„counsel€were€unable€to€sufficiently€discuss€the€case,€that€leadÍcounsel€planned€a€vacation€the€week€before€the€trial,€and€that€counsel€did€notÏhave€time€to€prepare€for€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€ÌÌà àThe€granting€or€denial€of€a€continuance€is€a€matter€left€to€the€soleÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court.€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€825€S.W.2d€113,€117€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1991),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1992).€€An€appellate€court€mayÏreverse€a€conviction€only€if€the€denial€of€the€continuance€was€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion,€and€a€different€result€might€reasonably€have€been€reached€had€theÏcontinuance€been€granted.€€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€257€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1990).€€We€can€find€nothing€in€the€recordÏwhich€suggests€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion,€thereby€prejudicing€theÏappellant.€€Although€the€court€denied€three€motions€by€defense€counsel€forÏcontinuances€just€prior€to€trial,€he€had€earlier€granted€several€such€motions.€€AsÏalready€noted,€although€the€trial€was€originally€scheduled€for€November€30,Ï1993,€it€began€on€May€31,€1994.€€In€other€words,€the€trial€court€postponed€theÏtrial€date€by€approximately€six€months.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€appellantððs€argument€that€co„counsel€did€not€haveÏadequate€time€to€prepare€for€trial,€we€note€that€lead€counsel€had€beenÏrepresenting€the€appellant€since€August,€1993.€€Thus,€by€the€time€co„counselÏwas€appointed,€lead€counsel€had€invested€well€over€seven€months€in€the€case.€ÏThis€scenario€is€quite€similar€to€the€one€presented€in€òòState€v.€Dillinghamóó,Ï03C01„9110„CR„319€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€In€òòDillinghamóó,€the€public€defender€was€only€afforded€one€monthÍto€prepare€for€a€case€with€which€a€previous€attorney€had€been€involved.€€òòIdóó.€ÏFinding€no€abuse€of€discretion,€this€court€declined€to€interfere€with€the€trialÏcourt's€denial€of€the€motion€for€continuance,€because€the€public€defender€hadÏthe€benefit€of€prior€counselððs€preparations€and€efforts.€€òòIdóó.€€Co„counsel€in€theÏinstant€case€was€appointed€in€early€April,€1994,€somewhat€less€than€two€monthsÏbefore€trial.× ƒR ××  ×€€Although€a€capital€case€will€clearly€require€more€preparation€byÏdefense€counsel€than€a€non„capital€case,€we€conclude€that€co„counsel€wasÏafforded€adequate€time€to€familiarize€himself€with€the€facts€and€assist€in€theÏappellantððs€defense.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€argues€that€lead€counsel€and€co„counsel€did€not€haveÏsufficient€opportunities€to€meet€and€discuss€the€case.€€On€this€same€note,€theÏappellant€argues€that€lead€counsel's€pre„planned€vacation€interfered€withÏcounselððs€trial€preparations.€€The€trial€court€is€not€responsible€for€counsel's€timeÏmanagement.€€Furthermore,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€indicating€thatÏjust€under€two€months€was€not€adequate€time€for€the€attorneys€to€meet€andÏprepare€for€trial.€€ÌÌà àAs€counsel€acknowledged€during€pre„trial€hearings,€the€more€importantÏaspect€of€this€particular€trial€was€the€sentencing€phase.€€The€appellant€arguesÏthat€he€was€not€appointed€expert€services€in€time€to€adequately€prepare€aÏmitigation€case.€€However,€the€record€reflects€that€the€court€authorizedÍinvestigative€services€on€January€28,€1994,€and,€again,€on€April€8,€1994.× ƒT ××  ×€ÏMoreover,€although€the€trial€court€did€not€authorize€funding€for€a€pathologistÏuntil€a€little€over€a€week€before€trial,€time€limitations€apparently€did€not€impedeÏthat€expert's€testimony€in€any€way.€€This€witness€was€able€to€testify€that,€in€hisÏopinion,€the€initial€blows€to€the€victim's€head€probably€rendered€herÏunconscious.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€norÏwas€the€appellant€prejudiced€by€the€denial€of€additional€continuances.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àò òii.ó ó€€ò òCompensationó óÌà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€denied€him€the€right€toÏcounsel€by€denying€lead€counselððs€motion€for€compensation.€€€In€support€of€hisÏargument,€the€appellant€cites€numerous€provisions€of€the€American€BarÏAssociation,€òòGuidelines€for€the€Appointment€and€Performance€of€Counsel€inÏDeath€Penalty€Casesóó,€òòModel€Rules€of€Professional€Conductóó,€and€òòStandards€forÏCriminal€Justiceóó.€€However,€the€appropriate€authority€on€this€issue€can€be€foundÏin€provisions€of€the€Tennessee€Code,€Rules€of€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,Ïand€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€ÌÌà àAs€the€appellant€correctly€notes,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€44(a)€provides€thatÏevery€indigent€defendant€shall€be€entitled€to€the€appointment€of€counsel.€ÍHowever,€Rule€44(b)€further€provides€that€the€"procedures€for€implementing€theÏassignment€of€counsel€shall€be€those€provided€by€law."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„14„202(a)€(1994€Supp.),€in€pertinent€part,€requires:€ÌÓÓÌà8 àin€all€felony€cases,€if€the€accused€be€not€represented€by€counsel,Ïand€the€court€determines€.€.€.€that€the€accused€is€an€indigentÏperson€who€has€not€competently€waived€the€accused's€right€toÏcounsel,€the€court€shall€appoint€to€represent€the€accused€either€òòtheÏpublic€defenderóó,€if€there€is€one€for€the€county,€or,€òòin€the€absence€ofÏa€public€defenderóó,€a€competent€attorney€licensed€in€this€state.Ì€Ì(Emphasis€added).€€ÓÓSup.€Ct.€Rule€13€further€mandates€that€the€appellant€"shallÏnot€have€the€right€to€select€the€appointed€counsel€from€the€Public€DefenderÏService,€from€the€panel€of€attorneys,€or€otherwise."€€Rule€13€continues:€"In€aÏcapital€case€two€attorneys€may€be€appointed€for€one€defendant€and€each€isÏeligible€for€compensation."€€ÌÌà àBefore€the€appellant€was€declared€indigent,€counsel€filed€a€motion€forÏcompensation,€because,€according€to€counsel,€the€funds€initially€paid€by€theÏappellant€were€depleted.€€As€mentioned€earlier,€once€the€appellant€wasÏdeclared€indigent,€the€court€stated€that€it€had€a€statutory€obligation€to€appointÏthe€public€defender€before€appointing€private€counsel.€€Consequently,€the€courtÏdenied€the€appellant's€motion€for€compensation.€€The€court€further€stated€that€itÏwould€appoint€the€public€defender€if€there€was€such€a€motion€before€the€court.€ÏHowever,€defense€counsel€filed€neither€a€motion€for€the€appointment€of€counselÏnor€a€motion€to€withdraw.× ƒU ××  ×€€Only€several€months€later€did€defense€counselÍrequest€the€appointment€of€co„counsel.× ƒV ××  ×€€The€court€then€appointed€the€publicÏdefender€to€assist€in€the€case.€€Again,€lead€counsel€did€not€file€a€motion€toÏwithdraw.€€We€conclude€that€his€actions€reflected€his€intent€to€continueÏrepresentation€of€the€appellant€regardless€of€compensation.× ƒW ××  ×€€Accordingly,€theÏtrial€court€did€not€err€in€refusing€to€appoint€or€compensate€lead€counsel.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€infers€that€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€compensationÏresulted€in€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.ÏHowever,€the€appellant€fails€to€explain€how€lead€counselððs€performance€wasÏdeficient€or€how€the€appellant€was€prejudiced€by€the€purported€deficientÏperformance.€€òòSeeóó€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€686,€104€S.Ct.€2052,Ï2054€(1984).€€Moreover,€after€a€review€of€the€record,€we€cannot€conclude€thatÏcounselððs€performance€was€below€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneyððs€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1973).€ÏAccordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àò òÌà àà àiii.ó ó€€ò òServicesó óÌà àAt€various€times€before€trial,€the€appellant€requested€investigativeÏservices,€a€psychologist,€a€mitigation€specialist,€a€jury€selection€statistician,€aÏneuropharmacologist,€a€forensic€expert,€and€a€pathologist.€€The€court€grantedÏthe€funding€for€the€investigator,€the€psychologist,€and€the€pathologist,€but€deniedÏthe€request€for€the€neuropharmacologist,€forensic€expert,€mitigation€specialist,Ïand€jury€selection€statistician.€€The€appellant€claims€that€the€court's€denial€of€theÏabove€services€violated€his€right€to€an€adequate€defense.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòStateÏv.€Elliotóó,€524€S.W.2d€473€(Tenn.€1975).ÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„14„207(b)€(1990)€provides,€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓÌà8 àIn€capital€cases€where€the€defendant€has€been€found€to€beÏindigent€by€the€court€of€record€having€jurisdiction€of€the€case,€suchÏcourt€in€an€ex€parte€hearing€may€in€its€discretion€determine€thatÏinvestigative€or€expert€services€or€other€similar€services€areÏnecessary€to€ensure€that€the€constitutional€rights€of€the€defendantÏare€properly€protected.ÌÓÓÌSup.€Ct.€Rule€13,€ðð2€(B)(10)€further€provides:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€defense€counsel€must€seek€prior€approval€for€such€servicesÏby€submitting€a€written€motion€to€the€Court€setting€forth:€(a)€theÏname€of€the€proposed€expert€or€service;€(b)€how,€when€and€whereÏthe€examination€is€to€be€conducted€or€the€services€are€to€beÏperformed;€(c)€the€cost€of€the€evaluation€and€the€report€thereof;Ïand€(d)€the€cost€of€any€other€necessary€services,€such€as€courtÏappearances.ÌÓÓÌAs€the€statute€notes,€the€decision€of€whether€to€authorize€the€investigative€orÏexpert€services€lies€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòCazesóó,€875ÏS.W.2d€at€261.€€Further,€Rule€13€and€relevant€case€law€maintain€that€the€right€toÍthese€services€exists€only€upon€a€showing€of€a€particularized€need.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€Shepherdóó,€902€S.W.2d€895,€904€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2dÏ185,€192€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€114€S.Ct.€740€(1994);€òòState€v.ÏBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€180€(Tenn.€1991).€€"The€defendant€must€show€that€aÏsubstantial€need€exists€requiring€the€assistance€of€state€paid€supportingÏservices€and€that€his€defense€cannot€be€fully€developed€without€suchÏprofessional€assistance."€€òòEvansóó,€838€S.W.2d€at€192;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòShepherdóó,€902ÏS.W.2d€at€904.ÌÌà àAgain,€upon€finding€the€appellant€indigent,€the€court€properly€granted€theÏappellant€investigative€and€expert€psychological€services.× ƒX ××  ×€€The€court€alsoÏgranted€the€appellant's€request€for€a€pathologist.€€Nevertheless,€the€appellantÏclaims€that€the€court€denied€him€an€adequate€defense€by€granting€this€latterÏrequest€only€a€few€days€before€trial.€€As€discussed€earlier,€the€pathologist€wasÏonly€needed€to€rebut€the€State's€evidence€that€the€initial€blows€to€the€head€didÏnot€render€the€victim€unconscious.€€Because€the€appellant's€expert€provided€theÏtestimony€the€appellant€sought,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€actions€wereÏnot€erroneous.ÌÌà àIn€denying€the€motion€for€the€services€of€a€neuropharmacologist,Ïstatistician,€and€forensic€expert,€the€judge€stated€that€the€appellant€had€failed€toÏcomply€with€the€requirements€of€Rule€13.€€After€reviewing€the€record,€we€agree.€ÍAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€also€acted€properly€in€this€respect.€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€trial€court€appropriately€denied€the€appellant's€request€forÏa€jury€selection€expert.€€The€Supreme€Court,€in€òòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€179„80,Ïheld€that€the€trial€court€may€deny€a€defendant€the€assistance€of€a€jury€expertÏwhen€the€defendant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€a€particularized€need.€€DefenseÏcounsel€explained€that€the€jury€expert€was€needed€"to€help€counsel€determineÏwhether€or€not€these€are€the€jury€people€that€we€need€not€to€execute€him."€€ThisÏstatement€does€not€describe€a€particularized€need.ÌÌà àFinally,€the€trial€court€denied€the€appellant€the€assistance€of€a€mitigationÏspecialist.€€Defense€counsel€asserted€that€the€expert€was€necessary€to€"gatherÏall€information€from€[the€appellant's]€background€to€attempt€to€put€on€mitigationÏat€the€sentencing€hearing€of€the€case."€€However,€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtÏthat€the€investigator€previously€authorized€by€the€court€was€more€than€capableÏof€performing€this€type€of€work.ÌÌà àHaving€reviewed€the€appellant's€claims€that€his€trial€counsel€was€notÏgiven€the€compensation,€time,€or€services€necessary€to€provide€an€adequateÏdefense,€we€find€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.ÌÌò òD.à8 àThe€Appellantððs€Statementsó óÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€his€statements€to€the€police€were€taken€inÏviolation€of€his€constitutional€rights.€€He€claims€that€he€was€subjected€toÍcustodial€interrogation€before€being€advised€of€his€rights,€that€he€was€neverÏinformed€of€his€rights,€and€that€he€never€waived€any€of€his€rights.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€denied€a€pre„trial€motion€to€suppress€the€appellant'sÏstatements€to€the€police.€€The€court€ruled€that€the€statements€were€voluntarilyÏgiven€in€accordance€with€the€appellant's€constitutional€rights.€€Testimony€at€theÏsuppression€hearing€revealed€that€on€July€7,€1993,€at€approximately€2:00€p.m.,Ïthe€appellant€and€his€wife€were€asked€to€accompany€Investigators€StanÏCavness€and€Jim€Porter€to€the€Dyersburg€Police€Department€for€questioning.€ÏThe€officers€told€the€appellant€and€his€wife€that€they€were€not€under€arrest.€ÏNevertheless,€Porter€informed€them€of€their€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€Other€members€ofÏthe€appellant's€family€were€also€asked€at€that€time€to€go€to€the€station€and€talkÏwith€the€officers.ÌÌà àFrom€2:00€p.m.€until€approximately€4:00.pm,€the€officers€talked€with€theÏappellant's€family€members€in€order€to€establish€the€appellant's€whereabouts€atÏthe€time€of€the€murder.€€At€some€point,€Ms.€Boxley,€the€appellant's€mother„in„law,Ïstated€that€she€did€not€want€to€talk€to€the€police€and€was€allowed€to€leave.€€TheÏappellant€was€placed€in€a€conference€room.€€However,€the€conference€roomÏwas€never€locked,€and€the€trial€court€found€that€the€appellantððs€freedom€ofÏactivity€was€not€restricted.€€Subsequently,€the€appellant€was€escorted€to€anÏinterrogation€room€where€the€appellant€gave€several€statements€to€the€police.€€ÌÌà àShortly€after€4:00€p.m.,€Investigator€Cavness€obtained€the€"alibiÍstatement"€from€the€appellant.€€Cavness€then€conferred€with€the€other€officersÏconcerning€the€statements€of€the€family€members.€€They€noticed€inconsistenciesÏbetween€the€appellant's€statement€and€those€of€his€family€members.€€At€aboutÏ6:00€p.m.,€Investigators€Cavness€and€McDowell€interviewed€the€appellant€for€anÏhour.€€Cavness€had€a€tape€recorder€in€his€pocket,€which,€contrary€to€hisÏassumption,€did€not€record€the€conversation.€€The€officers€testified€that€theyÏagain€informed€the€appellant€of€his€rights.€€During€this€unrecorded€conversation,Ïthe€officers€pointed€out€"holes"€in€the€appellant's€alibi.€€The€appellant€eventuallyÏconfessed€to€the€murder.ÌÌà àThe€officers€advised€the€appellant€that€he€was€under€arrest€andÏtransferred€him€to€the€holding€cell.€€The€officers€then€discovered€that€the€tapeÏrecorder€had€not€recorded€the€appellantððs€confession.€€Accordingly,€the€officersÏasked€the€appellant€if€he€would€give€another€statement.€€The€appellant€statedÏthat€he€wanted€to€see€his€wife€first.€€The€officers€complied,€and€the€appellantððsÏwife€was€brought€to€the€station.€€ÌÌà àAt€about€9:00€p.m.,€after€the€appellant€had€seen€his€wife,€McDowellÏobtained€a€recorded€statement€from€the€appellant.€€The€officer€again€advisedÏthe€appellant€of€his€rights,€and€the€appellant€again€confessed€to€committing€theÏcrime.€€The€appellant€never€asked€for€an€attorney.€€Sometime€during€thatÏafternoon,€the€officers€gave€the€appellant€œa€soft€drink.›€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€testified€during€the€suppression€hearing.€€He€stated€that€heÍwas€placed€in€feet€shackles€during€the€unrecorded€conversation.€€Additionally,Ïthe€appellant€stated€that€McDowell€was€yelling€at€him,€calling€him€derogatoryÏnames,€and€ð ðgot€to€grabbing€on€[him],€poking€on€[him].ðð€€He€stated€thatÏMcDowell€threatened€to€kill€him.€€According€to€the€appellant,€McDowell€alsoÏpromised€that€the€appellant€would€receive€psychological€treatment€and€wouldÏultimately€be€placed€in€a€hospital€rather€than€in€prison.€€As€mentioned€earlier,ÏOfficers€Jeff€Holt€and€Jim€Porter€testified€that€they€sat€outside€the€interrogationÏroom€during€both€the€unrecorded€and€recorded€conversations€and€did€not€hearÏany€threats€or€use€of€force.€€Moreover,€during€a€later€pre„trial€hearing,Ïappellant's€counsel€stated€that€the€appellant€had€indicated€to€him€that€he€hadÏlied€concerning€the€officersðð€use€of€threats,€force,€or€promises€to€obtain€hisÏstatement.ÌÌà àThe€court€found€that€at€no€point€in€time€were€threats,€force,€or€promisesÏused€by€the€police€to€obtain€the€appellantððs€statements.€€Although€the€officersÏindicated€to€the€appellant€that€they€would€inform€the€court€about€the€appellantððsÏpsychological€problems,€they€did€not€guarantee€treatment.€€Additionally,€theÏcourt€found€that€the€appellant€was€adequately€advised€of€his€rights.€€TheÏappellant€was€first€advised€of€his€rights€when€the€officers€asked€the€appellantÏand€his€wife€to€accompany€them€to€the€station.€€It€is€unclear€whether€theÏappellant€was€advised€of€his€rights€immediately€prior€to€the€"alibi€statement."€ÏNevertheless,€the€court€found€that€the€conversation€did€not€amount€to€aÏcustodial€interrogation.€€Finally,€the€court€found€that€òòMirandaóó€warnings€wereÏgiven€to€the€appellant€prior€to€the€unrecorded€and€recorded€statements.€€Indeed,Íin€the€recorded€statement,€the€appellant€acknowledged€that€he€had€beenÏinformed€of€his€rights€several€times€before.ÌÌà àIt€is€the€duty€of€the€trial€court€to€determine€the€voluntariness€and€theÏadmissibility€of€the€appellant's€statement.€€òòState€v.€Pursleyóó,€550€S.W.2d€949,€950Ï(Tenn.€1977).€€Moreover,€the€trial€court's€determination€that€a€confession€wasÏgiven€knowingly€and€voluntarily€is€binding€on€the€appellate€courts€unless€theÏappellant€can€show€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€court'sÏruling.€€òòState€v.€O'Guinnóó,€709€S.W.2d€561,€566€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€479€U.S.Ï871,€107€S.Ct.€244€(1986).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544Ï(Tenn.€1994).€€ÌÌà àò òà àI.ó ó€€ò òCustodial€interrogationó óÌà àThe€appellant€claims€that€he€was€in€custody€during€the€first,€"alibiÏstatement."€€According€to€the€appellant,€because€there€is€no€clear€evidence€thatÏhe€was€advised€of€his€rights€immediately€prior€to€this€statement,€this€statementÏshould€have€been€suppressed.€€The€appellant€further€argues€that€theÏsubsequent€statements€were€tainted€by€this€first€involuntary€statement€andÏshould€have€been€suppressed.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€834€S.W.2d€915,€918€(Tenn.Ï1992).€€ÌÌà àIn€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€479,€86€S.Ct.€1602,€1630€(1966),€theÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€the€Fifth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments'Ïprohibition€against€compelled€self„incrimination€requires€police€officers,€beforeÍinitiating€questioning,€to€advise€the€putative€defendant€of€his€right€to€remainÏsilent€and€his€right€to€counsel.€€If€these€warnings€are€not€given,€statementsÏelicited€from€the€individual€may€not€be€admitted€for€certain€purposes€in€aÏcriminal€trial.€€òòStansbury€v.€€Californiaóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€114€S.Ct.€1526,€1528€(1994).€ÏHowever,€an€officerððs€obligation€to€administer€òòMirandaóó€warnings€only€attachesÏð ðððwhere€there€has€been€such€a€restriction€on€a€personððs€freedom€as€to€renderÏhim€ð ðin€custody.ðððððð€€òòIdóó.€€(citing€òòOregon€v.€€Mathiasonóó,€429€U.S.€492,€495,€97€S.Ct.€Ï711,€714€(1970)).€€In€òòMirandaóó,€the€Court€explained€that€a€"custodialÏinterrogation"€refers€to€"questioning€initiated€by€law€enforcement€officers€after€aÏperson€has€been€taken€into€custody€or€otherwise€deprived€of€his€freedom€ofÏaction€in€any€significant€way."€€384€U.S.òò€óóat€444,€86€S.Ct.€at€1612.ÌÌà àThus,€when€determining€whether€or€not€there€was€custodial€interrogation,Ïthe€initial€inquiry€is€whether€the€suspect€was€ð ðin€custody.ðð€€The€trial€court€will€beÏgiven€a€wide€latitude€of€discretion€in€its€decision,€and€that€decision€will€not€beÏoverturned€by€this€Court€unless€it€appears€there€has€been€an€abuse€of€the€trialÏcourt's€discretion€and€a€violation€of€the€appellant's€rights.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,Ï868€S.W.2d€561,€570€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€115€S.Ct.€417Ï(1994);€òòState€v.€Nakdimenóó,€735€S.W.2d€799,€802€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÏdetermining€that€the€appellant€was€not€in€custody€during€the€initial€"alibiÏstatement."€€"[T]he€initial€determination€of€custody€depends€on€the€objectiveÏcircumstances€of€the€interrogation,€not€on€the€subjective€views€harbored€byÍeither€the€interrogating€officers€or€the€person€being€questioned."€€òòStansburyóó,€òò€€€óóÏU.S.€at€òò€€€óó,€114€S.Ct.€at€1529.× ƒY ××  ×€€Specifically,€the€inquiry€is€"how€a€reasonableÏperson€in€the€suspect's€position€would€have€understood€his€position,"€i.e.,€wouldÏhe€have€felt€that€he€was€not€free€to€leave€and,€thus,€in€custody.€€òòBerkemer€v.ÏMcCartyóó,€468€U.S.€420,€442,€104€S.Ct.€3138,€3151€(1984).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòMichigan€v.ÏChesternutóó,€486€U.S.€567,€573,€108€S.Ct.€1975,€1979€(1988);€òòState€v.€Mosieróó,Ï888€S.W.2d€781,€784€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Furloughóó,€797€S.W.2dÏ631,€639€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).ÌÌà àAgain,€the€appellant€and€his€wife€were€asked€to€come€to€the€station€andÏwere€told€that€they€were€not€under€arrest.× ƒZ ××  ×€€Although€the€appellant€was€placedÏin€a€conference€room€for€nearly€two€hours€while€the€officers€interviewed€hisÏrelatives,€he€was€neither€locked€in€the€room€nor€told€that€he€could€not€leave.€ÏMoreover,€the€record€indicates€that,€during€those€two€hours,€the€appellant€wasÏnot€entirely€isolated.€€His€wife€was€in€the€conference€room€for€a€portion€of€theÏtwo€hours.€€The€officers€periodically€checked€on€the€appellant€and€even€offeredÏhim€a€œsoft€drink.›€€The€appellant€never€asked€if€he€could€leave,€and€the€officersÍnever€told€him€that€he€could€not.€€The€record€further€reflects€that€Ms.€Boxley,€theÏappellant's€mother„in„law,€decided€she€did€not€want€to€talk€to€the€police,€and€theÏofficers€allowed€her€to€go.€€Accordingly,€the€circumstances€do€not€demonstrateÏthat€a€reasonable€person€would€have€believed€he€or€she€was€not€free€to€leave.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€two€subsequent€statements,€theÏunrecorded€statement€taken€around€6:00€p.m.€and€the€recorded€statement€takenÏaround€9:00€p.m.,€were€tainted€by€the€involuntary€"alibi€statement."€€Since€weÏhave€concluded€that€the€"alibi€statement"€did€not€stem€from€custodialÏinterrogation,€this€contention€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌà àà àò òii.ó ó€€ò òWaiveró óÌà àAlternatively,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€State€has€failed€toÏdemonstrate€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€appellant€waived€hisÏrights.€€He€contends€that€the€officers€never€obtained€a€written€waiver€of€rightsÏfrom€him€and€claims€that€the€oral€testimony€of€the€officers€is€insufficient€toÏsupport€the€court's€finding€that€the€statements€were€given€voluntarily.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€right€to€counsel€and€the€right€against€self„incrimination€areÏconstitutional€rights,€they€may€be€waived,€provided€the€waiver€is€madeÏð ðvoluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently.ðð€€òòState€v.€€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2dÏ317,€326€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.€dismissedóó,€510€U.S.€124,€114€S.Ct.€651Ï(1993)(citing€òòMirandaóó,€384€U.S.€at€444,€86€S.Ct.€at€1612).€€"A€waiver€is€valid€ifÍthe€suspect€is€aware€of€the€nature€of€the€right€being€abandoned€and€theÏconsequences€of€the€decision€to€abandon€the€right."€€òòStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2dÏat€547.€€The€totality€of€the€circumstances€must€be€examined€to€determineÏwhether€the€choice€was€uncoerced€and€whether€the€person€understood€theÏconsequences€of€his€decision.€€òòId.óó€at€545.ÌÌà àMcDowell,€Cavness,€Porter,€and€Holt€testified€at€the€suppression€hearingÏthat€the€appellant€was€advised€of€his€rights€before€the€unrecorded€statementÏand€before€the€recorded€statement.€€Although€the€police€failed€to€obtain€aÏwritten€waiver,€the€law€does€not€require€a€written€waiver.€€In€support€of€hisÏargument,€the€appellant€refers€to€his€young€age€(22),€lack€of€a€high€schoolÏeducation,€race€(African„American),€and€psychological€condition.€€However,€theÏappellant€was€not€a€stranger€to€the€criminal€justice€system.€€He€had€beenÏquestioned€by€the€police€in€the€past€and€had€been€incarcerated€pursuant€to€aÏprevious€conviction.€€With€respect€to€the€appellantððs€psychological€condition,Ïthere€is€no€evidence€in€the€record,€apart€from€the€appellant's€own€statements,Ïthat€the€appellant€was€in€fact€suffering€psychological€difficulties.€€The€courtÏgranted€the€appellant€psychological€services,€yet€the€record€contains€no€reports,Ïstatements,€or€findings€from€the€appointed€psychologist.ÌÌà àThe€transcript€of€the€recorded€statement€indicates€that€the€appellant€wasÏinformed€of€his€rights€prior€to€questioning.€€The€transcript€further€states€that€theÏappellant€had€been€advised€of€his€rights€earlier€that€evening,€that€the€appellantÏunderstood€the€English€language,€that€the€appellant€understood€his€rights,€andÍthat€the€appellant€wanted€to€"come€clean"€and€cooperate.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€€VanÏTranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€471„473€(Tenn.€€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€114€S.Ct.Ï1577€(1994).ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€he€was€threatened€and€offered€aÏpromise€in€exchange€for€his€confession.€€With€respect€to€the€promise,€theÏappellant€argues€that€Investigator€McDowell€assured€him€that€he€would€receiveÏtreatment€and€would€be€sent€to€a€hospital€rather€than€to€a€jail.€€The€recordÏreflects€that€the€appellant€suggested€to€the€officers€that€he€sufferedÏuncontrollable€urges€and€required€psychological€treatment.€€The€record€reflectsÏthat€McDowell€told€the€appellant€that€he€would€inform€the€court€that€theÏappellant€suffered€a€psychological€problem€and€needed€treatment.€€The€recordÏdoes€not€indicate,€however,€that€McDowell€promised€the€appellant€that€heÏwould€receive€treatment.€ÌÌà àMoreover,€as€mentioned€earlier,€the€transcript€of€a€subsequent€pre„trialÏproceeding€indicates€that€the€appellant€was€untruthful€about€the€offer€of€anyÏpromises€and€the€use€of€force€by€the€officers.€€Indeed,€our€examination€of€theÏtotality€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€appellantððs€interviews€with€theÏpolice€reveals€that€the€appellantððs€waiver€of€his€rights€was€not€the€product€ofÏintimidation,€coercion,€or€deception,€but€was€the€appellantððs€free€and€deliberateÏchoice.€€As€stated€above,€€the€trial€court's€determination€that€a€confession€wasÏgiven€knowingly€and€voluntarily€is€binding€on€the€appellate€courts€unless€theÏappellant€can€show€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€court'sÍruling.€€òòO'Guinnóó,€709€S.W.2d€at€566;€òòStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€544.€€TheÏappellant€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court'sÏdenial€of€the€motion€to€suppress€was€proper.ÌÌò òà àE.à8 àJury€SelectionÌó óà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€court,€the€prosecution,€and€defenseÏcounsel€erred€in€numerous€ways€in€selecting€the€jury.€€Specifically,€theÏappellant€presents€the€following€arguments:€€the€court€inappropriately€deniedÏthe€appellant's€motion€for€change€of€venue;€the€court€failed€to€adequatelyÏquestion€prospective€jurors€concerning€their€exposure€to€pre„trial€publicity;€theÏcourt€inappropriately€rehabilitated€jurors€who€stated€they€would€automaticallyÏimpose€the€death€penalty€and€inappropriately€prevented€defense€counsel€fromÏrehabilitating€jurors€who€stated€they€could€not€impose€the€death€penalty;€theÏcourt€prevented€the€jurors,€in€violation€of€òòCaldwell€v.€Mississippióó,€472€U.S.€320,Ï105€S.Ct.€2633€(1985),€from€fully€understanding€their€responsibility€forÏdetermining€the€œappellantððs›€penalty;€and€the€jury€selection€process€in€DyerÏCounty€fails€to€produce€a€venire€representing€a€fair€cross„section€of€theÏcommunity.× ƒ[ ××  ×ÌÌà àà àò òI.ó ó€€ò òPre„trial€Publicityó óÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€majority€of€prospective€jurors€wereÏexposed€to€pre„trial€publicity.€€In€this€regard,€the€appellant€asserts€that€the€courtÏand€the€parties€failed€to€conduct€adequate€voir€dire€of€individual€jurors.€ÏMoreover,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€changed€theÏvenue€of€the€case.ÌÌà àSpecifically,€the€appellant€claims€that,€during€voir€dire,€forty€of€the€fifty„sixÏprospective€jurors€stated€that€they€had€previously€either€read€or€heardÏinformation€about€the€case.€€According€to€the€appellant,€thirty„three€of€those€fortyÏjurors€were€not€questioned€concerning€the€nature€and€extent€of€their€exposureÏto€pre„trial€publicity.€€Moreover,€eleven€of€the€twelve€jurors€who€served€on€theÏjury€were€exposed€to€pre„trial€publicity.€€Nine€of€these€jurors€were€not€askedÏabout€the€nature€and€extent€of€their€exposure.ÌÌà àThe€State€contends€that€the€jurors€were€properly€questioned€concerningÏtheir€exposure€to€publicity,€and€the€trial€court€appropriately€determined€that€a€fairÏtrial€could€be€held€in€Dyer€County.€€As€the€State€notes€in€its€brief,€eleven€jurorsÏwere€dismissed€due€to€exposure€to€pre„trial€publicity€or€a€predisposition€toÏimpose€the€death€penalty.€€The€majority€of€the€remaining€prospective€jurorsÏindicated€that€they€had€read€or€heard€something€about€the€case€but€wereÏunable€to€remember€much€of€that€information€and€had€not€formed€an€opinionÏconcerning€the€appellant's€guilt€or€innocence.€€At€least€nine€prospective€jurorsÏstated€that€they€could€not€remember€any€information€about€the€case€or€had€notÏbeen€exposed€to€any€pre„trial€publicity.ÌÌà àRule€24€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides:€€"If€theÏtrial€judge,€after€examination€of€any€juror,€is€of€the€opinion€that€grounds€forÏchallenge€for€cause€are€present,€he€shall€excuse€that€juror€from€the€trial€of€theÏcase."€€The€rule€continues:ÌÓÓÌà8 àA€prospective€juror's€exposure€to€potentially€prejudicial€informationÏmakes€him€unacceptable€as€a€juror.€€Both€the€degree€of€exposureÏand€the€prospective€juror's€testimony€as€to€his€state€of€mind€shallÏbe€considered€in€determining€acceptability.€€A€prospective€jurorÏwho€states€that€he€will€be€unable€to€overcome€his€preconceptionsÏshall€be€subject€to€challenge€for€cause€no€matter€how€slight€hisÏexposure.€€If€he€has€seen€or€heard€and€if€he€remembersÏinformation€that€will€be€developed€in€the€course€of€trial,€or€that€mayÏbe€inadmissible€but€is€not€so€prejudicial€as€to€create€a€substantialÏrisk€that€his€judgment€will€be€affected,€his€acceptability€shallÏdepend€on€whether€his€testimony€as€to€impartiality€is€believed.€€IfÏhe€admits€to€having€formed€an€opinion,€he€shall€be€subject€toÏchallenge€for€cause€unless€the€examination€shows€unequivocallyÏthat€he€can€be€impartial.ÌÓÓÌà àImplicit€in€Rule€24€is€the€recognition€that€jurors€do€not€live€in€a€vacuum.€ÏBecause€certain€cases€are€by€their€very€nature€apt€to€generate€publicity,€it€is€notÏinconceivable€that€some€jurors€will€have€formed€an€impression€or€opinionÏconcerning€the€case.€€In€addressing€this€problem,€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€has€observed:ÌÓÓà8 àIt€is€not€required€...€that€the€jurors€be€totally€ignorant€of€the€factsÏand€issues€involved.€€In€these€days€of€swift,€widespread€andÏdiverse€methods€of€communication,€an€important€case€can€beÏexpected€to€arouse€the€interest€of€the€public€in€the€vicinity,€andÏscarcely€any€of€those€best€qualified€to€serve€as€jurors€will€not€haveÏformed€some€impression€or€opinion€as€to€the€merits€of€the€case.€ÏThis€is€particularly€true€in€criminal€cases.€€To€hold€that€the€mereÏexistence€of€any€preconceived€notion€as€to€the€guilt€or€innocenceÏof€an€accused,€without€more,€is€sufficient€to€rebut€the€presumptionÏof€a€prospective€jurorððs€impartiality€would€be€to€establish€anÍimpossible€standard.€€ÌÓÓÌòòIrvin€v.€Dowdóó,€366€U.S.€717,€722„723,€81€S.Ct.€1639,€1642„1643€(1961).€€òòSeeÏalsoóó€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€549.€€Accordingly,€jurors€may€sit€on€a€case,€even€ifÏthey€have€formed€an€opinion€on€the€merits€of€the€case,€if€they€are€able€to€set€thatÏopinion€aside€and€render€a€verdict€based€upon€the€evidence€presented€in€court.€ÏòòIdóó.€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€in€interpreting€Rule€24,€this€court€has€held€that€prospectiveÏjurors€who€have€been€exposed€to€information€which€will€be€developed€at€trialÏare€acceptable,€if€the€court€believes€their€claims€of€impartiality.€€òòState€v.ÏShepherdóó,€862€S.W.2d€557,€569€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993).€€With€respect€to€jurors€who€have€been€exposed€toÏinformation€which€is€inadmissible€at€trial€because€of€its€prejudicial€effect,€RuleÏ24€ð ðimplicitly€places€the€burden€upon€the€trial€court€to€assess€the€level€ofÏprejudice€apart€from€the€juror[sðð]€statements."€€òòIdóó.× ƒ\ ××  ×€€In€either€case,€theÏdetermination€of€impartiality€remains€a€matter€within€the€trial€court's€discretion.€ÏòòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€549.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Sammonsóó,€656€S.W.2d€862,€869Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€In€other€words,€ð ð[a]€trial€courtððs€findings€of€jurorÏimpartiality€may€be€overturned€only€for€ððmanifest€error.ðððð€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€atÏ262€(òòquotingóó€òòPatton€v.€Yountóó,€467€U.S.€1025,€1031,€104€S.Ct.€2885,€2889Ï(1984)).ÌÌà àUpon€motion€of€the€appellant,€the€trial€court€permitted€individual€voir€direÏof€prospective€jurors€regarding€their€pre„trial€exposure€to€publicity€and€theirÏgeneral€attitude€toward€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.R.Crim.P.Ï24€(a);€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€263€(when€a€crime€is€highly€publicized,€the€betterÏprocedure€is€to€grant€the€defendant€individual€voir€dire;€individual€voir€dire€isÏmandated€only€if€there€is€a€significant€possibility€of€exposure€to€potentiallyÏprejudicial€material).€€òòCf.óó€òòState€v.€Claybrookóó,€736€S.W.2d€95,€98„101€(Tenn.Ï1987).€€As€the€appellant€suggests,€upon€examination,€a€majority€of€theÏprospective€jurors€revealed€that€they€had€either€read€or€heard€something€aboutÏthis€case€prior€to€the€trial.€€Again,€the€appellant€claims€that€thirty„three€of€the€fortyÏjurors€who€had€previously€been€exposed€to€information€about€the€case€were€notÏquestioned€about€the€extent€of€that€information.€€ÌÌà àInitially,€we€note€that,€although€questions€concerning€the€content€of€anyÏpublicity€to€which€jurors€have€been€exposed€may€be€helpful€in€assessingÏimpartiality,€such€questions€are€not€constitutionally€mandated,€and€the€trialÏcourtððs€failure€to€delve€into€the€jurors'€exposure€is€not€reversible€error,€unless€theÏappellant's€trial€was€rendered€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€262.€ÏIn€any€case,€contrary€to€the€appellantððs€claim,€those€jurors€with€knowledge€of€theÏcase€were€indeed€asked€the€source€and€extent€of€that€knowledge.€€The€majorityÏstated€that€they€had€either€read€about€the€case€in€the€State€Gazette€or€hadÏheard€friends€talk€about€the€case.€€The€trial€court€excused€nine€of€those€jurorsÏbecause€of€their€extensive€exposure€to€the€facts€of€the€case€or€personalÏrelationships€with€the€victim€or€members€of€her€family.€€All€of€the€remainingÍjurors€who€had€experienced€some€exposure€indicated€that€either€they€did€notÏremember€any€of€the€facts€about€the€case€or€had€not€formed€any€opinionÏconcerning€the€case.€€These€remaining€jurors€asserted€that€they€could€follow€theÏlaw€and€the€courtððs€instructions€thereon.ÌÌà àRule€21€of€the€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides€for€change€of€venueÏ"if€it€appears€to€the€court€that,€due€to€the€undue€excitement€against€theÏdefendant€in€the€county€where€the€offense€was€committed€or€any€other€cause,€aÏfair€trial€probably€could€not€be€had."€€The€mere€fact€that€jurors€have€beenÏexposed€to€pre„trial€publicity€will€not€warrant€a€change€of€venue.€òòSammonsóó,€656ÏS.W.2d€at€869.€€Moreover,€ð ð[b]efore€an€accused€is€entitled€to€a€reversal€of€hisÏconviction€on€the€ground€that€the€trial€judge€erroneously€denied€his€motion€for€aÏchange€of€venue,€he€must€demonstrate€...€that€the€jurors€who€actually€sat€wereÏððbiased€and/or€prejudiced.ðððð€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€No.€85€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏKnoxville,€November€8,€1990),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1991)€(quotingÏòòState€v.€Burtonóó,€751€S.W.2d€440,€451€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€The€decision€ofÏwhether€the€venue€should€be€changed€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt,€and€his€decision€will€be€reversed€only€upon€a€showing€of€an€affirmativeÏand€clear€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€249€(Tenn.Ï1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€114€S.Ct.€1339€(1994);€òòRippy€v.€Stateóó,€550€S.W.2dÏ636,€638€(Tenn.€1977).Ì€Ìà àAfter€thoroughly€reviewing€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€court€did€notÏabuse€its€discretion.€€The€trial€court€carefully€and€meticulously€orchestrated€theÍjury€selection€process€to€ensure€the€selection€of€an€impartial€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòCazesóó,Ï875€at€262€(the€ultimate€goal€of€voir€dire€is€to€insure€that€jurors€are€competent,Ïunbiased,€and€impartial).€€Accordingly,€although€a€majority€of€jurors€wereÏexposed€to€pre„trial€publicity,€we€conclude€that€the€appellant's€trial€was€notÏrendered€fundamentally€unfair€as€a€result.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638ÏS.W.2d€342,€359„62€(Tenn.€1982),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€459€U.S.€1137,€103€S.Ct.€770Ï(1983).ÌÌà àà àò òii.ó ó€€ò òJuror€Rehabilitationó óÌà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€improperly€rehabilitatedÏsix€jurors€after€they€indicated€a€propensity€to€impose€a€sentence€of€deathÏwithout€reserving€judgment€until€the€presentation€of€mitigation€proof.€€He€furtherÏclaims€that€the€court€improperly€denied€defense€counsel€the€opportunity€toÏrehabilitate€one€juror€who€harbored€scruples€about€the€death€penalty.ÌÌà àInitially,€we€note€that,€at€the€conclusion€of€voir€dire,€the€court€informed€theÏappellant€that€he€had€not€exercised€one€of€his€peremptory€challenges.€€As€theÏState€contends,€in€order€to€assign€as€error€the€trial€court's€ruling€on€challengesÏfor€cause,€an€appellant€must€exercise€all€of€his€peremptory€challenges.ÏòòMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€329.€€Moreover,€"the€failure€to€exclude€a€juror€forÏcause€is€grounds€for€reversal€only€if€the€[appellant]€exhaust[ed]€all€of€hisÏperemptory€challenges€òòandóó€an€incompetent€juror€is€forced€upon€him."€€òòId.óóÏ(emphasis€added).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Kilburnóó,€782€S.W.2d€199,€202€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1989)(ð ð[o]nly€when€a€defendant€exhausts€all€his€peremptory€challengesÍand€is€forced€to€later€accept€an€incompetent€juror€...€can€he€complain€about€theÏjury€compositionðð).€€Of€the€six€prospective€jurors€about€whom€the€appellantÏcomplains,€none€actually€served€as€a€juror€on€the€case.€€Accordingly,€"any€errorÏin€not€excusing€these€potential€jurors€is€harmless€because€they€were€not€forcedÏupon€[the€appellant]€at€the€trial."€€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239,€246Ï(Tenn.€1989),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€497€U.S.€1031,€110€S.Ct.€3288€(1990).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóóÏòòState€v.€Simonóó,€635€S.W.2d€498,€510„11€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€459€U.S.€1055,Ï103€S.Ct.€473€(1982).€€The€appellantððs€claim€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àAdditionally,€the€appellant's€contention,€that€he€was€improperly€preventedÏfrom€rehabilitating€one€juror€who€indicated€that€she€was€opposed€to€the€deathÏpenalty,€is€meritless.€€When€asked€by€the€prosecutor€if€she€could€impose€theÏdeath€penalty,€Juror€Carson€indicated€that€she€probably€could€not.€€The€CourtÏthen€asked€Carson€on€two€separate€occasions€if€she€could€consider€the€deathÏpenalty€as€a€possible€punishment.€€Each€time,€Carson€indicated€that,€regardlessÏof€the€evidence,€she€would€feel€uncomfortable€considering€the€imposition€of€theÏdeath€penalty.€€Finally,€the€court€inquired,€ð ðNow,€let€me€make€sure€I€understand.€ÏAre€you€saying€that€you€would€automatically€vote€against€the€death€penalty€inÏany€case€regardless€of€what€the€evidence€might€show?€€Is€that€correct?ðð€€CarsonÏreplied€affirmatively.ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€State€that€Ms.€Carsonððs€final€response€left€ð ðno€leewayÏfor€rehabilitation.ðð€€òòStrouthóó,€620€S.W.2d€at€471.€€òòState€v.€Alleyóó,€776€S.W.2d€506,Ï517„518€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€493€U.S.€1036,€110€S.Ct.€758€(1990).€€InÍany€event,€assuming€that€the€questioning€of€Ms.€Carson€by€the€prosecutor€andÏthe€court€ð ðhad€not€reached€the€point€that€left€no€leeway€for€rehabilitation,ðð€weÏmust€consider€whether€the€dismissal€of€Ms.€Carson€for€cause€was€appropriateÏunder€the€dictates€of€òòWainwright€v.€Wittóó,€469€U.S.€412,€105€S.Ct.€844€(1985).€ÏòòSeeóó€òòAlleyóó,€776€S.W.2d€at€517„518.€€In€òòWainwrightóó,€469€U.S.€at€424,€105€S.Ct.€atÏ852,€the€United€Stated€Supreme€Court€delineated€the€following€standard€forÏdetermining€whether€a€juror€was€properly€excused€for€cause:€€"whether€theÏjuror's€views€would€'prevent€or€substantially€impair€the€performance€of€his€[orÏher]€duties€as€a€juror€in€accordance€with€his€[or€her]€instructions€and€his€[or€her]Ïoath.'"€€The€Supreme€Court€further€observed€that€"this€standard€does€not€requireÏthat€a€juror's€bias€be€proved€with€'unmistakable€clarity.'"€€òòIdóó.€€Finally,€the€CourtÏnoted€that€"deference€must€be€paid€to€the€trial€judge€who€sees€and€hears€theÏjurors."€€òòIdóó.€at€426,€853.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€Ms.€Carson's€responses€to€questioning€by€theÏprosecutor€and€the€court€adequately€demonstrated€that€her€views€concerningÏthe€death€penalty€"would€[have]€'prevent[ed]€or€substantially€impair[ed]€theÏperformance€of€[her]€duties€as€a€juror€in€accordance€with€[her]€instructions€andÏ[her]€oath.'"€€òòWainwrightóó,€469€U.S.€at€424,€105€S.Ct.€at€852.€€òòSee€alsoóó,€òòState€v.ÏSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€915„16€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€116€S.Ct.Ï99€(1995).€€Moreover,€as€noted€earlier,€great€deference€should€be€given€to€theÏtrial€judge,€who€is€"left€with€the€definite€impression€that€a€prospective€juror€wouldÏbe€unable€to€faithfully€and€impartially€apply€the€law."€€òòWainwrightóó,€469€U.S.€atÏ426,€105€S.Ct.€at€853.€€The€trial€court's€findings€"shall€be€accorded€aÍpresumption€of€correctness€and€the€burden€shall€rest€upon€the€appellant€toÏestablish€by€convincing€evidence€that€[those€findings€were]€erroneous."€€òòAlleyóó,Ï776€S.W.2d€at€518.€€The€appellant€has€failed€to€meet€this€burden.ÌÌà àà àò òiii.ó ó€€ò òòòCaldwellóó€Violationsó óÌà àThe€appellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€committed€errors€in€violationÏof€the€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòCaldwellóó,€472€U.S.€at€320,€105€S.Ct.€at€2633.€ÏSpecifically,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€improperly€sustained€theÏprosecutor's€objection€when€defense€counsel€referred€during€voir€dire€to€"votingÏto€kill€the€defendant,"€"how€[the€jurors]€feel€about€killing€the€defendant,"€andÏ"frying"€the€defendant.€€According€to€the€appellant,€the€courtððs€ruling€shieldedÏthe€jury€from€the€harsh€reality€that€it€would€sit€in€judgment€of€the€appellant's€life.ÌÌà àThe€appellant's€argument€is€without€merit.€€In€òòCaldwellóó,€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€held€that€"it€is€constitutionally€impermissible€to€rest€a€deathÏsentence€on€a€determination€made€by€a€sentencer€who€has€been€led€to€believeÏthat€the€responsibility€for€determining€the€appropriateness€of€the€defendant'sÏdeath€rests€elsewhere."€òòId.óó€at€328„29,€2639.€€In€the€subsequent€case€of€òòRomanoÏv.€Oklahomaóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€114€S.Ct.€2004,€2010€(1994),€the€Court€noted€that€it€hasÌÓÓÌà8 àsince€read€òòCaldwellóó€as€"relevant€only€to€certain€types€of€comment€„Ïthose€that€mislead€the€jury€as€to€its€role€in€the€sentencing€processÏin€a€way€that€allows€the€jury€to€feel€less€responsible€than€it€shouldÏfor€the€sentencing€decision."€€òòDarden€v.€Wainwrightóó,€477€U.S.€168,Ï184€n.15,€106€S.Ct.€2464,€2473€n.15€(1986).€€Thus,€"[t]o€establish€aÏòòCaldwellóó€violation,€a€defendant€necessarily€must€show€that€theÏremarks€to€the€jury€improperly€described€the€role€assigned€to€theÏjury€by€local€law."€€òòDugger€v.€Adamsóó,€489€U.S.€401,€407,€109€S.Ct.Í1211,€1215€(1989).ÌÓÓÌà àThe€record€is€devoid€of€any€indication€that€either€the€court€or€prosecutorÏmisled€the€jurors€as€to€their€role€in€the€sentencing€process.€€The€prospectiveÏjurors€were€asked€whether€or€not€they€personally€could€impose€the€deathÏpenalty€if€the€State€proved€that€the€aggravating€circumstances€existed€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€and€that€these€aggravating€circumstances€outweighed€anyÏmitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„204(g)(1).€€These€questions€properly€outlined€the€sentencing€jury's€dutyÏin€a€capital€case.€€The€appellant€offers€no€authority,€and€we€cannot€find€any,Ïwhich€requires€the€court€to€allow€the€appellant€to€employ€colorful€semantics,Ïsuch€as€"kill"€and€"fry,"€to€convey€to€the€prospective€jurors€their€duty€under€theÏlaw.ÌÌà àà àò òiv.ó ó€€ò òJuror€Pooló óÌà àFinally,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€jury€selection€process€in€DyerÏCounty€did€not€afford€the€appellant€a€jury€representative€of€a€fair€cross„section€ofÏthe€community.× ƒ] ××  ×€€Specifically,€the€appellant€claims€that€the€use€of€a€list€ofÏregistered€drivers€as€the€pool€from€which€to€draw€prospective€jurors€essentiallyÏdenies€African„Americans€the€opportunity€to€serve€on€a€jury.€€The€appellantÏneither€offers€legal€authority€nor€cites€to€any€proof€in€the€record€which€wouldÍsupport€his€argument.ÌÌà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€set€forth€a€three„pronged€test€in€òòDurenÏv.€€Missourióó,€439€U.S.€357,€364,€99€S.Ct.€€664,€668€(1979),€for€determiningÏwhether€a€jury€was€properly€selected€from€a€fair€cross„section€of€the€communityÏpursuant€to€the€Sixth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments.€€Accordingly,€in€order€toÏestablish€a€prima€facie€violation€of€the€fair€cross„section€requirement,€theÏdefendant€must€show:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€that€the€group€alleged€to€be€excluded€is€a€ð ðdistinctiveðð€group€inÏthe€community;× ƒ^ ××  ×ÌÌà8 à(2)€that€the€representation€of€this€group€in€venires€from€whichÏjuries€are€selected€is€not€fair€and€reasonable€in€relation€to€theÏnumber€of€such€persons€in€the€community;ÌÌà8 à(3)€that€this€under€representation€is€due€to€systematic€exclusion€ofÏthe€group€in€the€jury„selection€process.ÌÓÓÌòòDurenóó,€439€U.S.€at€363,€99€S.Ct.€€at€668.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€hasÏadopted€this€test.€€òòState€v.€€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,€610€(Tenn.€€1984).€€òòSee€alsoóóÏòòAdkins€v.€€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€353€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdismissedóó,€(Tenn.€1995);€€òòState€v.€Bluntóó,€708€S.W.2d€415,€417€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1992),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àT.J.€Jones,€the€Circuit€Court€Clerk€for€Dyer€County,€outlined€to€the€trialÏcourt€the€method€by€which€his€office€œselects€the›€jury€œvenire€in›€Dyer€County.€€HeÍtestified€that€his€office€selects€the€jury€œvenire›€from€a€list€of€licensed€drivers€in€theÏcounty.€€Out€of€the€total€county€population€of€38,000€people,€there€are€28,000Ïlicensed€drivers.€€Members€of€Jonesðð€office€calculate€the€number€of€jurorsÏrequired€for€a€two€year€period,€which€œin€this€case€was›€approximately€3,000.€ÏThey€then€divide€the€number€of€licensed€drivers€by€the€number€of€jurorsÏneeded.€€The€quotient€determines€the€number€of€names€they€will€skip€when€theyÏcount€down€the€alphabetical€list€of€28,000€licensed€drivers€to€obtain€3,000Ïjurors.€€Mr.€Jones€further€testified€that,€of€the€150€jurors€available€for€theÏselection€of€the€appellant's€jury,€twelve€or€thirteen€were€African„Americans.€ÏConsequently,€African„Americans€constituted€approximately€eight€percent€of€theÏprospective€jurors.€€Finally,€Jones€testified€that€approximately€seven€percent€ofÏthe€population€of€Dyer€County€is€African„American.ÌÌà à€Accordingly,€the€record€reveals€no€disparity€between€the€size€of€theÏcognizable€group€in€the€community€and€its€representation€in€the€appellant's€juryÏœvenire.›€€Nor€does€the€record€contain€evidence€that€the€use€of€driverððs€licenseÏrolls€has€resulted€in€the€systematic€exclusion€of€African„Americans€in€the€juryÏselection€process.€€Indeed,€our€supreme€court€has€approved€the€use€of€voterÏregistration€lists€to€select€potential€jurors.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€Caruthersóó,€676€S.W.2dÏ935,€939€(Tenn.€1984),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€469€U.S.€1197,€105€S.Ct.€981€(1985).€ÏAlthough€no€court€in€this€state€has€addressed€the€use€of€driverððs€license€rolls€inÏselecting€jury€œvenires,›€we€can€see€no€material€difference€between€the€use€of€aÍlist€of€registered€voters€and€the€use€of€a€list€of€registered€drivers.œ× ƒ_ ××  ×›€€TheÏappellant€has€failed€to€establish€a€prima€facie€case€under€either€the€state€orÏfederal€constitution.€€Having€completely€reviewed€the€record,€we€do€not€find€anyÏerror€in€the€selection€of€the€jury€in€this€case.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÓÓÌÌÌò òÓÓà àF.à8 àInstructions€Concerning€Mitigating€Evidenceó óÌà àThe€appellant€claims€that€the€use€of€"extreme"€and€"substantial"€asÏmodifiers€in€describing€the€mitigating€circumstances€set€forth€in€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðððð€39„13„204(j)(2),€(8)€(1991)€created€a€reasonable€likelihood€that€the€juryÏunderstood€them€to€prohibit€consideration€of€the€appellant's€mental€disturbanceÏunless€it€exceeded€some€undefined€threshold.€€Accordingly,€the€appellantÏasserts,€the€jury€was€prevented€from€considering€as€mitigation€"any€aspect€ofÏ[the€appellant's]€character€or€record."€€òòLockett€v.€Ohioóó,€438€U.S.€586,€604,€98ÏS.Ct.€2954,€2964„65€(1978).€€Our€supreme€court€has€repeatedly€rejected€thisÏargument.€òòSeeóó€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€920;€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€268;€òòState€v.ÏSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€16„17€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€114€S.Ct.€€561Í(1993),€òòand€cert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€114€S.Ct.€682€(1994).€€Therefore,€this€issueÏis€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓÓÓÓà àG.à8 àThe€Appellantððs€Right€to€Lifeó óÌà àThe€appellant€claims€that€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€in€this€caseÏviolates€substantive€due€process€and€equal€protection€principles.€€The€appellantÏcontends€that€the€State€has€no€compelling€interest€in€executing€the€appellantÏbecause€it€offered€the€appellant€a€life€sentence€in€exchange€for€a€guilty€plea.× ƒa ××  ×€ÏThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€consistently€found€that€the€death€penalty€isÏconstitutional€and€does€not€impermissibly€infringe€upon€the€right€to€life.€€òòSee,Ïe.g.óó,€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€926;€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€253;€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€atÏ1;€òòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€166;€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589€(Tenn.€1990),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€498€U.S.€1074,€111€S.Ct.€800€(1991);€òòTeelóó,€793€S.W.2d€at€236;ÏòòThompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€at€239.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌò òÓÓÓÓà