ÿWPC )# NUNY %§ 0(­4Õébøw$ 0J, 0ªv 0D  0Td 0^¸U: 0hP 0r¸ 0|* 0†¦ 0, 1u¼ 0d1 U>• U*Ó Bý ã ý ›v~²vÓ0˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡äzz! @ d3|xT - ù-0% D& ' ( ) * D+ , D- . U/ 0 D1 2 3 D4 5 D6 7 3e8 9 D: ; ™< ™= D> U? b@  A EB C D DE F G H DI J DK L DM N DO P UQ UR ES DT 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(Z(2׬$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Xf”XXXÔòòà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial d ÙÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€"Ôòòà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýà àThe€appellant€is€a€member€of€the€ð ðBloodsðð€street€gang.€€They€wear€red€and€blackÏcolors€to€signify€membership€in€the€gang.€€The€intended€victim€is€a€member€of€the€ð ðCrips,ðð€a€rivalÏstreet€gang.€€The€ð ðCripsðð€wear€blue€to€signify€membership€in€their€gang.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€"Ôòòà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýà àTony€Gray€and€the€other€passengers€in€the€car€were€wearing€blue.€€€€Ì ‘Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€"Ôòòà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€jury€should€have€been€instructed€that€to€commitÏfirst€degree€murder€one€must€kill€with€a€ð ðcool€purpose.ðð€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.Ï1992).€€€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  Ý›Ò ° ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ќԀ"ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÓ ` ܆XDp”X Óà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€à ààQ àAT€€JACKSONÌÌÓ` °‡XDp”XÓà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ààQ àà àOCTOBER€1996€SESSIONó óÌÌÌÌÌà àÓ ` ®DÓò òÌÓ` cÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àó ó)€ÌÓ ` ¸ cÓà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€€02C01„9602„CR„00049€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellee,à à)Ìà àà à)€Shelby€CountyÌV.€€€€€€€à à)Ìà àà à)€Honorable€L.€T.€Lafferty,€JudgeÌò òà àó óà à)ò òÌBRYANT€DEWAYNE€MILLEN,ó óà à)€(Murder€in€the€First€Degree)€à àà à)€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellant.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌLeslie€I.€Ballinà àCharles€W.€BursonÌMark€A.€Meslerà àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€ÌBallin,€Ballin€&€Fishman,€P.C.Ì200€Jefferson€Avenue,€Suite€1250à àTimothy€F.€BehanÌMemphis,€TN€38103à àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àJohn€W.€PierottiÌà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àThomas€D.€HendersonÌà àAsst.€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà à201€Poplar,€Third€FloorÌà àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€___________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌó óÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌ̛̜ÌÑ X ÑÑ  ÑÑ#€åXÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñò òÓ ` pÓÔ  Ôà ààQ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó ó€ÌÌÓ ` ¸ pÓà àÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Bryant€Dewayne€Millen,€was€indicted€on€one€count€of€firstÏdegree€murder€and€one€count€of€felony€murder.€€He€was€convicted€by€a€jury€ofÏfirst€degree€murder€and€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.€€He€appeals€raising€theÏfollowing€issues€for€our€review:ÌÌÓÓà à1.€€Whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€convict;ÌÌà à2.€€Whether€the€stateððs€failure€to€elect€which€count€toÌà àproceed€upon€violated€double€jeopardy;ÌÌà à3.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€suppressÌà àthe€appellantððs€statement;ÌÌà à4.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€allow€Ìà àindividual€voir€dire;ÌÌà à5.€€Whether€the€state€committed€prosecutorial€misconductÌà àduring€voir€dire;ÌÌà à6.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€a€photographÌà àof€the€victim;ÌÌà à7.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€that€aÌà àtestifying€expert€witness€was€qualified;ÌÌà à8.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€the€appellantððsÌà àrequest€for€special€jury€instructions;€and€ÌÌà à9.€€Whether€the€state€committed€prosecutorial€misconductÌà àduring€closing€arguments.ÌÓÓÌFinding€no€prejudicial€error,€we€affirm.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓFACTSó óà àò òÌÓ  Óó óÌà àThe€appellant€was€a€member€of€a€gang€known€as€the€ð ðBloods.ðð€€HisÏintended€victim,€Tony€Gray,€was€a€member€of€a€rival€gang€known€as€the€ð ðCrips.ðð€€ÏOn€June€1,€1994,€the€appellant€told€friends€that€he€was€tired€of€GrayððsÏharassment€and€that€if€he€saw€Gray€again€he€was€ð ðgoing€to€blast€on€him.ðð€€LaterÏthat€same€day,€the€appellant€went€to€a€friendððs€house€to€get€a€gun.€€HeÏinstructed€his€friend€that€he€ð ðneededðð€the€gun€immediately.€€He€was€given€aÏhandgun€with€€ammunition.€€The€appellant€proceeded€to€the€corner€ofÏGraceland€and€David€in€Memphis.€€He€placed€a€red€bandana€around€his€headÏand€another€around€his€mouth.× ƒ$ ××  ×€€Shortly€thereafter,€a€car€containing€Tony€GrayÏand€several€other€passengers€proceeded€slowly€down€Graceland.× ƒ% ××  ×€€TheÏappellant€drew€his€weapon€and€began€running€towards€the€car€firing€repeatedÏshots€at€its€passengers.ÌÌà àThe€victim€in€this€case€was€a€14€year€old€female.€€She€was€walking€homeÏfrom€school€down€Graceland€when€the€appellant€began€shooting€at€Tony€Gray.€ÏThe€victim€was€hit€and€killed€by€an€errant€bullet€fired€by€the€appellant.€€ÌÌà àAfter€the€shooting,€the€appellant€was€observed€running€down€GracelandÏtowards€his€father's€home.€€The€police€were€dispatched€to€the€house.€€UponÏarrival,€the€appellant€was€found€in€the€bathroom€attempting€to€cut€his€hair.€€TheÏhandgun€that€the€appellant€had€used€was€found€buried€in€the€backyard.€€AfterÏquestioning,€the€appellant€confessed€to€the€shooting.€€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓIò òà àÌÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€theÏjuryððs€verdict.€€He€argues€that€no€reasonable€jury€could€have€concluded€that€theÏstate€proved€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€he€was€guilty€of€first€degreeÏmurder.€€Ìà àÌà àWhere€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€forÏthis€Court€is€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€toÏthe€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€or€crimes€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.ÏVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.Ï1985);€T.R.A.P.€13(e).€€The€weight€and€credibility€of€the€witnessesðð€testimony€areÍmatters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1978).€€€A€jury€conviction,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€resolves€allÏconflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Hatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€both€the€strongest€legitimate€view€ofÏthe€evidence€and€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÏtherefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€ò òÌÌÔ  ÔÓÓÓÓÓ` ¸ pÓó óÔ  Ôà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€state€failed€to€prove€premeditation€andÏdeliberation.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€avers€that€there€was€absolutely€noÏevidence€that€he€acted€with€a€cool€purpose.€€Ìà àÌà àAt€the€time€the€appellant€committed€the€offense,€first€degree€murder€wasÏdefined€as€ð ðthe€intentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing€of€another.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202€(1991€Repl.).€€A€deliberate€act€was€defined€as€anÏact€performed€with€a€cool€purpose.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201€(b)(1)€(1991ÏRepl.).€€A€premeditated€act€was€defined€as€an€act€done€after€the€exercise€ofÏreflection€and€judgment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201€(b)(2)€€(1991€Repl.).ÌÌà àThis€court€takes€judicial€notice€of€an€interesting€and€novel€issue€this€caseÏpresents.€€Tenn€R.€App.€P.,€Rule€13.à àWe€are€confronted€with€whether€theÏelements€of€deliberation€and€premeditation€can€be€transferred€from€theÏintended€victim€to€the€unintended€victim€which€is€killed.ÌÌà àTransferred€intent,€in€one€form€or€another,€has€been€consistently€appliedÏby€most€jurisdictions.€€Transferred€intent€addresses€the€"bad€aim"€situation.€€AÏshoots€at€B.€€A€misses€B€and€hits€C.€€C€is€killed.€€Transferred€intent€holds€that€AÏis€no€less€culpable€for€killing€C€as€if€had€been€successful€in€killing€B.€ÏJurisdictions€have€uniformly€refused€to€reward€A€for€merely€being€a€bad€shot.€€AÏintended€death€and€death€is€what€he€accomplished.€€A's€actions€are,€therefore,Ïnot€less€culpable€simply€due€to€the€fact€he€killed€an€unintended€and€innocentÏbystander.ÌÌà àThe€need€for€transferred€intent€has€uniformly€arisen€when€state€murderÏstatutes€define€murder€as€"the€unlawful€killing€of€the€victim."€€Both€courts€andÏlegal€scholars€have€suggested€that€the€need€for€transferred€intent€can€beÏavoided€by€defining€homicide€as€intending€"to€cause€the€death€of€that€personÏ[the€victim]€or€of€another€person."€œòòState›€v.€œFeketeóó,›€901€P.2d€œ708,€714›€œ(N.M.›Ïœ1995)€(citing1€Paul€H.€Robinson,€Criminal€Law€defenses€ðð€89(c)€(1984)Ï(paraphrasing€Ala.€Code€ðð€30„2„1(A)).›ÌÌà àTennessee's€murder€statute€defines€first€degree€murder€as€theÏ"intentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing€of€another."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏœ39„13„202›€(1991€Repl.).€€The€Code€does€not€limit€the€killing€to€the€intendedÏvictim€or€that€person.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„13„202›Ï(1991€Repl.)€incorporates€the€doctrine€of€transferred€intent.€€The€appellant'sÏconviction€can€be€sustained€provided€he€intended,€with€premeditation€andÏdeliberation,€to€kill€his€intended€victim.ÌÌà àThe€state€presented€evidence€that€the€appellant€had€stated€he€intendedÏto€ð ðblast€onðð€Tony€Gray€the€next€time€he€saw€him.€€Evidence€was€presented€thatÏhe€made€a€special€trip€to€a€friendððs€house€to€get€a€weapon.€€The€jury€could€haveÏconcluded€that€he€"needed"€the€weapon€to€kill€Tony€Gray.€€Also,€testimony€wasÏgiven€stating€that€the€appellant€brandished€his€gangððs€colors€prior€to€shooting€atÏthe€passing€car.€€€The€jury€could€have€inferred€that€the€appellant€reflected€uponÏhis€course€of€action€and€wanted€to€be€certain€that€the€occupants€of€the€passingÏcar€knew€they€were€being€attacked€by€a€rival€gang€member.€€€€€€ÌÌà àBased€upon€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial,€the€jury€could€have€concludedÏthat€the€appellant,€after€reflection€and€consideration,€planned€to€kill€Tony€Gray.€€ÏMoreover,€the€jury€had€ample€evidence€from€which€to€conclude€the€killing€wasÏcommitted€with€a€cool€purpose.€€We€will€not€supplant€the€jury's€inferences€withÏthose€of€our€own.€€Accordingly,€the€appellant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€theÏevidence€was€insufficient.€€This€Court€finds€it€to€be€overwhelming.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÓÓÌÓ  ÓIIÌÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€stateððs€failure€to€elect€which€count€toÏproceed€on€amounted€to€a€violation€of€the€prohibition€against€double€jeopardy.€ÏThe€appellant€was€indicted€on€one€count€of€first€degree€murder€byÏpremeditation€and€deliberation€and€one€count€of€felony€murder.€€He€argues€thatÍthese€two€charges€are€essentially€the€same€and€that,€therefore,€he€was€put€inÏdouble€jeopardy.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àThe€double€jeopardy€clauses€of€the€United€States€and€TennesseeÏConstitution,€virtually€identical€in€content,€provide€protection€against€(1)€aÏsecond€prosecution€for€the€same€offense€after€acquittal;€(2)€a€secondÏprosecution€for€the€same€offense€after€conviction;€and€(3)€multiple€punishmentsÏfor€the€same€offense.€€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Pearceóó,€395€U.S.€711€(1969).€ÌÌà àIn€this€case€double€jeopardy€was€not€offended.€€The€state€is€not€requiredÏto€elect€upon€separate€charges€in€the€same€indictment.€€òòState€v.€Beardóó,€818€ÏS.W.2d€376,€378€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)€€If€the€appellant€had€been€convictedÏand€sentenced€on€both€counts€of€the€indictment,€his€contention€would€be€wellÏplaced.€€However,€the€appellant€was€only€convicted€and€sentenced€for€oneÏcount€of€first€degree€murder.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€ÌÌÌÓ  ÓIIIÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€his€statement€to€police€shortly€after€theÏshooting€was€not€freely€and€voluntarily€given€and€should€have€beenÏsuppressed.€€He€argues€that€the€police€made€statements€to€convince€him€thatÏhe€would€be€given€leniency€if€he€cooperated.€€He€claims€he€was€so€ð ðgripped€byÏthe€hope€of€leniencyðð€that€he€confessed€to€the€shooting.ÌÌà àA€trial€courtððs€determination€of€the€voluntariness€and€admissibility€of€anÏaccused's€statement€is€binding€on€this€Court€unless€the€appellant€can€show€thatÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€òòState€v.€OððGuinnóó,Ï709€S.W.2d€561,€566€(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824,€830Ï(Tenn.€1994).€€The€overriding€question€addressed€by€this€Court€is€whether€theÏbehavior€of€law€enforcement€officials€served€to€overbear€the€accusedððs€will€toÏresist.€€òòState€v.€Kellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€726,€728€(Tenn.€1980).ÌÌà àUpon€review€of€the€suppression€hearing€transcript,€we€conclude€that€theÏappellant€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden.€€His€claim€rests€almost€soley€on€the€factÏthat€law€enforcement€officials€told€him€what€potential€crimes€he€could€beÏcharged€with€and€the€range€of€punishment€attached€to€each.€€The€appellant'sÏstatement€cannot€be€considered€coerced€simply€because€he€was€informed€ofÏthe€potential€consequences€of€his€actions.€€Furthermore,€the€record€reveals€thatÏthe€appellant's€father€was€present€during€the€entire€interview.€€Nothing€in€theÏrecord€convinces€this€Court€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€ruling.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌÓ  Óà àIVÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€œÏmotion›€for€individual€sequestered€voir€dire€to€question€prospective€jurors€aboutÍtheir€exposure€to€pretrial€publicity.€€He€claims€that€there€was€a€significantÏpossibility€that€potential€jurors€were€exposed€to€excessively€prejudicial€material.€€ÌÌà àThe€ultimate€goal€of€voir€dire€is€to€insure€that€jurors€are€competent,Ïunbiased,€and€impartial.€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€247€(Tenn.€1993);ÏòòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€540€(Tenn.€1994).€€Generally,€the€controlÏof€voir€dire€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòIdóó.;€òòState€v.ÏJeffersonóó,€529€S.W.2d€674,€682€(Tenn.€1975).€€However,€individual€sequesteredÏvoir€Ô  Ôdire€is€mandated€when€there€is€a€ð ðsignificant€possibilityðð€that€a€juror€hasÏbeen€exposed€to€potentially€prejudicial€material.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2dÏ54,€65€(Tenn.€1992).€€ÌÌà àThe€record€reveals€that€the€trial€judge€took€the€appellant's€motion€forÏindividual€sequestered€voir€dire€under€advisement.€€The€judge€stated€that€itÏwould€be€allowed€if€it€became€necessary.€€He€obviously€felt€that€it€never€did.€€WeÏagree.€€The€record€does€not€show€a€ð ðsignificant€possibilityðð€of€such€exposure€inÏthis€case.€€The€appellant€has€failed€to€show€that€group€voir€dire€of€theÏprospective€jurors€prejudiced€him€in€any€way.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓVÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€state€prejudiced€the€potential€jury€byÏexplaining€that€the€shooting€in€this€case€appeared€to€be€gang€related.€€Also,€theÏappellant€contends€that€the€stateððs€explanation€of€how€premeditation€applied€toÍthe€facts€of€this€case€was€prejudicial.€€He€argues€that€"these€comments€plantedÏa€seed€in€the€minds€of€the€jurors€that€must€have€affected€their€mentalÏperspective€before€trial."€€ÌÌà àGenerally,€errors€committed€during€the€selection,€summoning€and€theÏempaneling€of€juries€do€not€affect€the€validity€of€a€verdict€in€a€criminal€caseÏunless€prejudice€has€enured€to€the€accused.€€òòHelton€v.€Stateóó,€255€S.W.2d€694,Ï700€(Tenn.€1953).€€€€The€appellant€has€failed€to€substantiate€this€claim€beyondÏmere€speculation.€€He€has€not€demostrated€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€any€errorÏthat€was€committed€during€voir€dire.€€Without€more,€this€Court€must€presume€theÏjurors€followed€the€trial€judgeððs€instructions€and€correctly€applied€the€law€to€theÏevidence€adduced€at€trial.€€òòState€v.€Bartonóó,€626€S.W.2d€296,€298€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1981).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€ÌÌÓ  Óà à€VIÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€aÏphotograph€of€the€victim€while€she€was€alive.€€He€alleges€that€the€photographððsÏprobative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€its€prejudicial€effect.€€ÌÌà àThe€admissibility€of€photographs€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€theÏtrial€court.€€The€trial€court's€decision€will€not€be€overturned€unless€it€affirmativelyÏappears€that€the€admission€has€affected€the€results€of€the€trial.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,Ï638€S.W.2d€342,€365€€(1982);€€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Bradyóó,€595€F.2d€359,Í361€(6th€Cir.€1979).€€"The€trend€of€modern€authority€is€to€vest€more€discretion€inÏthe€trial€court€in€this€respect."€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€Moreover,€we€cannot€substitute€our€judgment€for€that€of€the€trial€court.€ÏòòState€v.€Weaveróó,€No.€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€3,€1985).€€To€overturn€in€theÏabsence€of€an€affirmative€finding€of€abuse€of€discretion€and€prejudice,€weÏmerely€supplant€the€trial€judge's€judgment€with€that€of€our€own.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€has€not€affirmatively€demonstrated€that€admission€of€theÏphotÔ  Ôographic€evidence€prejudiced€the€jury€verdict.€€Moreover,€the€photographÏwas€relevant€in€establishing€the€identity€of€the€victim.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€ÌÌ€ÌÓ  ÓVIIÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€accepting€aÏresident€pathologist€as€a€qualified€expert€witness€to€testify€as€to€the€victimððsÏcause€of€death.€€He€alleges€that€the€doctor€should€not€have€been€certified€as€anÏexpert€because€he€received€his€medical€degree€in€Pakistan,€was€not€boardÏcertified,€and€could€only€work€under€supervision€of€a€board€certified€doctor.€€ÌÌà àThe€determination€of€the€qualifications€of€an€expert€witness€and€theÏrelevancy€and€competency€of€expert€testimony€are€matters€which€rest€within€theÏsound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Fearsóó,€659€S.W.2d€370,€377€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1976);€òòState€v.€Scottóó,€735€S.W.2d€825,€828€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€ÍThis€Court€will€not€interfere€with€the€exercise€of€this€discretion€absent€clearÏabuse.€€òòFearsóó,€659€S.W.2d€at€377.€€ÌÌà àTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€702€states€that€an€expert€may€testify€ifÏscientific,€technical€or€other€specialized€knowledge€will€substantially€assist€theÏtrier€of€fact.€€Furthermore,€a€witness€can€acquire€this€specialized€knowledgeÏnecessary€to€qualify€as€an€expert€by€skill,€experience,€training,€or€education.€€€ÌÌà àIn€this€case€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€allowing€theÏpathologist€to€testify€as€to€his€findings€concerning€the€victimððs€cause€of€death.€ÏNotwithstanding€the€doctorððs€lack€of€board€certification,€he€possessedÏspecialized€knowledge€that€could€have€substantially€assisted€the€trier€of€fact.€€IfÏthe€appellant€doubted€the€doctorððs€expertise,€cross„examination€was€theÏappropriate€tool€for€attacking€the€witnessðð€testimony.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€€€€€€€ÌÌ̛̜ÌÓ  ÓVIIIÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€submitÏtwo€special€instructions€to€the€jury€on€premeditation€and€diminished€capacity.€ÍSpecially,€the€appellant€avers€that€the€instructions€submitted€by€the€trial€courtÏfailed€to€adequately€explain€the€law€under€òòState€v.€Brownóó.× ƒ& ××  ×€€€ÌÌà àAn€accused€has€a€right€to€request€jury€instructions.€€òòState€v.€Tysonóó,€603ÏS.W.2d€748€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€€However,€jury€instructions€are€sufficientÏwhere€they€adequately€state€the€law.€€Upon€review€of€the€record,€we€find€that€theÏtrial€judgeððs€instructions€were€an€adequate€rendition€of€the€law.€€The€decision€toÏgrant€or€deny€the€introduction€of€special€instructions€lies€within€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€We€find€no€abuse€of€this€discretion.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓIXÌÌÓ  Óà àIn€the€last€issue€raised€by€the€appellant,€he€contends€that€a€mistrialÏshould€have€been€granted€due€to€improper€conduct€of€the€prosecutor€duringÏclosing€argument.€€The€conduct€complained€of€includes€quoting€BiblicalÏscripture€and€personally€ð ðtestifyingðð€before€the€jury€during€closing€arguments.€ÏThe€appellant€contends€that€these€comments€where€highly€inflammatory€andÏprejudicial€and€should€have€resulted€in€a€mistrial.€€ÌÌà àTrial€judges€have€wide€discretion€in€controlling€the€argument€andÏconduct€of€counsel.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€527€S.W.2d€737,€739€(Tenn.€1975).€ÏHowever,€in€€€Ìreviewing€a€claim€alleging€prosecutorial€misconduct,€this€Court€must€determineÏwhether€the€improper€conduct€could€have€affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€œÌthe›€defendant.€€òòJudge€v.€State,óó€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€ÏThis€Court€has€set€out€five€factors€which€must€be€considered€in€making€thisÏdetermination.€€òòIdóó.€at€344.€€€These€factors€are€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà à1.€€the€conduct€complained€of€in€light€of€the€facts€andÌà àcircumstances€of€the€case;ÌÌà à2.€the€curative€measures€undertaken;Ìà àÌà à3.€€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improper€remarks;ÌÌà à4.€€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€anyÌà àother€errors€in€the€record;€and€ÌÌÓÓà à5.€€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àThis€Court€does€not€find€any€error€related€to€this€issue€that€mandatesÏreversal.€€The€prosecutorððs€intent€was€not€malicious.€€The€evidence€against€theÏappellant€was€overwhelming.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€confessed€to€the€crime.€ÏWe€find€that€any€error€that€was€committed€was€harmless.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.€€ÌÌà àUpon€review€of€the€record,€we€find€no€reversible€error.€€The€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€is€affirmed.€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÌà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€Judge€