ÿWPCq …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ ø 0J 0TJ 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh U,Ý 0d U,mU>™ B×U *ôB)DCG AMŠ,× D36v~; 0@¹vÓù AOÌÆ 0Dá D/% BT˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- EFEGDHIJMUNUOÓ€[»{s 3|x]((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" 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  Ô2^ 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< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òJuly€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó$$$$'ÿÿdxd ûÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ôÔIt€is€clear€from€the€trial€judgeððs€statements€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€that€in€factÏtwelve€prospective€jurors€were€seated€in€the€jury€box,€while€six€additional€prospective€jurors€were€seated€inÏthe€›front€of€the€courtroom.€€Challenges€were€allowed€only€for€the€twelve€in€the€jury€box€and€replacementsÏwere€selected€from€the€six€seated€in€the€front€of€the€courtroom.€€The€record€is€not€clear€as€to€whether€theÏgroup€of€six€was€subject€to€voir€dire.€€Because€of€this€we€are€unable€to€say€whether€this€procedure€was€aÏsufficient€variation€from€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24€to€require€a€finding€of€prejudice€œto€the›€entire€judicial€systemÏthereby€requiring€reversal.€€òòSeeóó€òòColemanóó,€œ865€S.W.2d€at›€œ458;›€œòòGladdish,óó›€1995€œWL›€œ695125,›€at€*8.€ÏHowever,€trial€judges€should€be€reminded€that€any€deviation€from€the€procedures€of€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24Ïcreates€a€risk€of€reversible€error,€and€such€departures€from€the€ruleððs€dictates€should€be€avoided€unlessÏand€until€Rule€24€is€amended€to€create€a€more€œexpedient›€procedure.€€òòId.óóÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€&'XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€()';+'h|µf` Å `€€Lß›ÌAT€JACKSONÌÌFEBRUARY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.ÏNO.€02C01„9502„CC„00044Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àCARROLL€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€C.€CREED€MCGINLEYó óÌò òARCHIE€VAUGHN€MONTAGUE,)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Direct€Appeal)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌSTEPHEN€M.€MILAMà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌP.€O.€Box€1062à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌLexington,TN€€38351Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àELLEN€H.€POLLACKÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àROBERT€RADFORDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àELENORA€CAHILLÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€686Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHuntingdon,€TN€€38344ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇÓ  Óò òòòÔ€%„ÔOPINIONó óóóÔ€%ŠÔÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà àA€Carroll€County€Circuit€Court€jury€found€Appellant€Archie€VaughnÏMontague€guilty€of€one€count€of€first€degree€murder.€€The€conviction€arose€fromÏthe€shooting€death€of€Ronald€Adams€during€the€attempted€perpetration€of€aÏrobbery.€€Appellant€received€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonment.€€In€this€appeal,ÏAppellant€presents€the€following€issues€for€review:€Ìà0 à(I)€whether€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€legally€sufficient€to€sustain€aÏconviction€for€first€degree€murder;€Ìà0 à(II)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€evidence€relating€to€a€suicideÏnote€written€by€Appellant€while€in€prison;€Ìà0 à(III)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€allow€individual€voir€dire€of€theÏjury;€Ìà0 à(IV)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€evidence€relating€toÏAppellantððs€statement€to€law€enforcement€authorities€concerning€theÏshooting;€and€Ìà0 à(V)€whether€the€œmethod€of€jury€selection€constituted€reversible€error.Ì›Ìà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÌÓ  Óó óà àAppellant€first€alleges€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€legallyÏinsufficient€to€sustain€his€conviction€for€first€degree€murder.€€When€an€appealÏchallenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€standard€of€review€is€whether,Ïafter€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€any€rationalÏtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€318€(1979);€òòState€v.ÏEvansóó,€838€œS.W.2d€185,€190„91€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€114€S.€Ct.€740Ï(1994);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimate€inferences€whichÏmay€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€This€Court€will€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€reevaluate€the€evidence,€orÏsubstitute€its€evidentiary€inferences€for€those€reached€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.ÏCareyóó,€914€S.W.2d€93,€95€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€In€a€criminal€trial,€greatÏweight€is€given€to€the€result€reached€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€910€S.W.2dÏ897,€899€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àOnce€approved€by€the€trial€court,€a€jury€verdict€accredits€the€witnessesÏpresented€by€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.ÏWilliamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€465€U.S.€1073€(1984).€ÏThe€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€theÏreconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€proof€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€juryÍas€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984).€€A€juryððsÏguilty€verdict€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€enjoyed€by€the€defendant€atÏtrial€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914Ï(Tenn.€1982).€€The€defendant€then€bears€the€burden€of€overcoming€thisÏpresumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€175€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€We€will€review€the€facts€of€this€case€in€light€of€the€foregoing€well„settledÏprinciples€of€law.ÌÌà àOn€the€afternoon€of€February€25,€1991,€Ronald€Adams€died€of€a€gunshotÏwound€to€the€back€of€the€neck.€€At€the€time€of€the€shooting,€Adams€wasÏassisting€Cathy€Giles€at€Walkerððs€Grocery€and€Sporting€Goods€Store€in€CarrollÏCounty,€Ms.€Giles€place€of€employment.€€Adamsðð€body€was€found€lying€on€theÏfloor€behind€a€store€display€counter€with€a€.380€auto€projectile€bullet€in€aÏflattened€condition€next€to€his€knee.€€The€physical€condition€of€the€bullet€indicatedÏthat€Adams€may€have€been€shot€as€he€lay€on€the€ground,€with€the€bulletÏflattening€after€it€passed€through€his€neck€and€struck€the€concrete€floor€of€theÏstore.€Medical€evidence€established€that€the€bullet€was€fired€less€than€twelveÏinches€from€the€surface€of€the€skin€and€that€the€bullet€traveled€through€theÏmuscles€of€the€back€of€the€neck,€fractured€two€vertebrae,€severed€the€spinalÏcord,€and€exited€through€the€voice€box€in€the€hollow€of€the€neck.€€€€€€ÌÌà àEarlier€that€same€day,€Chris€Wilson€visited€Appellantððs€residence€inÏGibson€County€for€the€purpose€of€selling€him€a€gun.€€Kaswasi€Williams,€a€friendÏof€Appellant,€had€spent€the€previous€night€at€Appellantððs€residence€and€wasÏstill€present€when€Wilson€arrived.€€The€three€men€left€the€residence€together€inÏWilsonððs€car.€€Making€a€brief€stop€at€another€friendððs€house€so€that€WilliamsÏcould€eat,€the€men€drove€to€the€town€of€Huntingdon€in€Carroll€County.€€DuringÏthe€trip,€both€Williams€and€Appellant€inspected€the€loaded€.380€caliber€handgunÏthat€Appellant€was€considering€purchasing.€€At€some€point€during€the€trip,ÏAppellant€placed€the€loaded€gun€in€the€waistband€of€his€pants.ÌÌà àAt€approximately€3:00€p.m.,€the€men€stopped€at€Walkerððs€Grocery.€€WhileÏWilliams€pumped€gas,€Wilson€and€then€Appellant€entered€the€store.€€Both€GilesÏand€Adams€were€present€in€the€store.€€Upon€entering,€Wilson€told€Giles€that€herÏfather,€the€owner€of€the€store,€had€ordered€some€pistol€grips€for€him.€€Giles€wasÏunaware€of€any€order€but€proceeded€to€the€gun€counter€to€show€Wilson€theÏpistol€grips€in€stock.€€Adams€joined€her,€standing€behind€a€knife€counter€thatÏwas€next€to€the€gun€counter.€€In€order€to€determine€if€the€pistol€grips€fit€properly,ÏWilson€unloaded€and€dismantled€his€.357€Magnum€handgun.€€Williams€thenÏentered€the€store,€whereupon€Adams€indicated€to€Giles€that€Williams€wanted€toÏpay€for€the€gas.€€In€response,€Giles€moved€between€the€gun€and€knife€countersÍto€the€cash€register.€€Nevertheless,€before€she€was€able€to€take€payment€for€theÏgas,€Williams€left€the€store€and€returned€to€the€car.ÌÌà àAs€Giles€stood€at€the€cash€register€wondering€who€would€pay€for€theÏgas,€a€commotion€of€some€kind€drew€her€attention€back€to€the€area€of€the€storeÏwhere€Adams,€Wilson,€and€Appellant€were€standing.€€However,€due€to€aÏpartition€separating€the€cash€register€from€the€gun€and€knife€counters,€Giles€hadÏan€obstructed€view€of€the€area.€€Peering€over€the€partition€somewhat,€GilesÏnoticed€that€Appellant€had€moved€around€behind€the€counter€where€Adams€andÏshe€had€just€been€standing.€€She€observed€Appellant€ð ðgoing€back€and€forthÏbetween€the€two€counters,ðð€eventually€knocking€over€the€knife€counter€andÏanother€display€rack.€€Soon€thereafter,€Giles€heard€a€gunshot.€€While€unable€toÏobserve€Adams€or€to€determine€exactly€what€was€happening,€Giles€retrieved€aÏgun€from€under€the€cash€register,€later€testifying€that€she€believed€the€store€wasÏbeing€robbed.€€Wilson€moved€to€the€cash€register€and€told€her€to€ð ðget€down,Ïbitch.ðð€€When€Wilson€moved€back€to€the€display€counter€area,€Giles€fled€theÏstore.ÌÌà àImmediately€after€leaving€the€store,€Giles€observed€Williams€in€the€car€andÏfired€one€shot€as€he€drove€away.€€She€then€proceeded€to€the€house€next€door,Ïtelling€her€neighbor€Mae€Goodrum€to€ð ðcall€911.€€Someone€has€Ronnie€held€up€inÍthe€store.ðð€€As€Giles€returned€to€the€store€to€check€on€Adams,€she€saw€WilsonÏand€Appellant€in€the€field€behind€the€store.€€She€fired€two€shots€as€they€enteredÏa€wooded€area,€missing€both€men.€€Giles€returned€to€the€store€to€find€Adams€onÏthe€floor€behind€the€counter,€unconscious€and€bleeding€from€a€gunshot€wound.€ÏWhile€calling€for€an€ambulance,€she€noticed€the€car€that€she€had€just€fired€uponÏdriving€slowly€in€front€of€the€store,€honking.ÌÌà àLaw€enforcement€authorities€apprehended€Williams€not€long€after€theÏshooting€as€he€was€driving€away€from€the€store.€€The€police€searched€theÏvehicle€and€found€stockings€with€the€legs€cut€off,€a€thermal€mask,€and€firearmÏammunition.€€Williams€refused€to€give€his€true€name€or€the€names€of€the€otherÏtwo€men.€€The€following€day,€Wilson€and€Appellant€were€apprehended€afterÏspending€the€night€in€the€woods€behind€the€store.€€Authorities€eventually€foundÏAppellantððs€.380€handgun€hidden€beneath€two€logs€and€some€leaves€in€theÏwooded€area€where€they€had€spent€the€night.€€Firearm€tests€confirmed€that€theÏbullet€found€next€to€Adamððs€body€was€fired€from€this€particular€weapon.€ÏMoreover,€the€physical€characteristics€of€the€bullet€were€consistent€with€the€typeÏof€wound€tract€identified€during€the€autopsy€of€Adamððs€body.€€ÌÌà àLater€on€the€same€day€of€his€capture,€Appellant€made€conflictingÏstatements€to€authorities€concerning€the€shooting.€€He€first€stated€that€he€wentÍinto€the€store€to€get€a€pack€of€gum€but€could€not€remember€anything€about€theÏshooting.€€He€remembered€only€running€from€the€store€without€the€gum.€€He€alsoÏstated€that€he€did€not€know€the€name€of€the€ð ðwhite€guyðð€involved,€referring€toÏWilson.€€Approximately€three€hours€later,€investigators€gave€Appellant€anÏopportunity€to€add€to€his€original€statement€in€light€of€the€fact€that€Wilson€hadÏnow€made€a€statement.€€At€this€point,€Appellant€remembered€a€more€detailedÏaccount€of€the€incident.€€Appellant€reported€that,€as€Williams€attempted€to€payÏfor€the€gas,€Adams,€standing€behind€the€display€counter,€grabbed€him€andÏpulled€him€over€the€counter.€€He€stated€that,€as€they€struggled€for€his€gun,€it€fired.€ÏHowever,€the€physical€evidence€of€the€shooting€was€inconsistent€withÏAppellantððs€account€of€a€struggle€over€the€weapon.€€Adams€suffered€a€gunshotÏwound€to€the€back€of€the€neck,€making€the€contention€that€he€was€engaged€inÏa€hand„to„hand€struggle€at€the€time€questionable.€€Also,€Adams€had€no€gunshotÏresidue€on€his€hands,€indicating€that€he€was€not€holding€the€weapon€at€the€timeÏit€fired.€€During€this€opportunity€to€discuss€the€shooting,€Appellant€referred€toÏWilson€by€name,€despite€his€earlier€claim€that€he€did€not€know€Wilsonððs€name.ÌÌà àOn€February€27,€two€days€after€the€shooting,€Appellant€attempted€toÏcommit€suicide€in€his€jail€cell.€€However,€when€alerted€by€the€other€inmates,Ïjailors€intervened.€€While€in€Appellantððs€cell,€jailors€discovered€and€tookÍpossession€of€a€note€that€Appellant€had€written€in€association€with€his€suicideÏattempt.€€The€note€read€as€follows:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓ` °ŽXØ'0*ŒXÓÓÓà8 àFor€the€victimððs€family.€€I€know€this€family€wish€Iððll€die,€but€IÏwant€everybody€to€know€I€didnððt€want€to€kill€that€man.€ÏIððm€sorry,€I€weep€their€loss.€€We€both€was€a€victim.€€IððmÏsorry.€€I€hope€in€your€heart€you€can€forgive€me.€€I€must€doÏwhat€I€think€is€right.€€I€broke€one€of€Godððs€rules,€and€IÏmust€die.€€Please€donððt€hold€no€pain€because€Iððm€goingÏto€do€my€time.€€Please€drop€all€charges€on€the€other€twoÏguys,€if€you€donððt€mind,€please.€€God€will€be€the€judge€forÏme.€€My€heart€weeps€for€your€loss.€€I€donððt€wantÏanybody€to€think€Iððm€crazy€because€Iððm€not.€€I€feel€this€isÏright.€€If€you€take€a€life,€you€give€a€life.€ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ ` °œXÓÓÓà àÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€his€trial,€the€jury€found€Appellant€guilty€of€one€count€ofÏfirst€degree€murder.€€In€order€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€first€degree€murder€in€thisÏcase,€the€State€was€required€to€prove€that€Appellant€recklessly€killed€AdamsÏduring€an€attempt€to€perpetrate€a€robbery.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2)€(1991).€€Appellant€argues€that€the€State€presented€no€direct€evidenceÏof€Appellantððs€guilt€and€that€the€circumstantial€evidence€relied€upon€by€the€StateÏfailed€to€exclude€every€other€reasonable€hypothesis€except€that€of€AppellantððsÏguilt.€€It€is€well€settled€that€a€crime€may€be€established€by€the€use€ofÏcircumstantial€evidence€only.€€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€899„900€(Tenn.Ï1987);€€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€220€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€ÏHowever,€before€an€accused€may€be€convicted€of€a€criminal€offense€basedÏupon€circumstantial€evidence€alone,€the€facts€and€circumstances€"must€be€soÍstrong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€[beyond€a€reasonable€doubt]€every€otherÏreasonable€hypothesis€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant."€€òòBordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€atÏ220€(quoting€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€470€S.W.2d€610,€612€(Tenn.€1971)).€€StatedÏanother€way,€ð ð[a]€web€of€guilt€must€be€woven€around€the€defendant€from€whichÏhe€cannot€escape€and€from€which€facts€and€circumstances€the€jury€could€drawÏno€other€reasonable€inference€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòId.óóÌÌà àThe€physical€evidence€surrounding€the€shooting,€and€the€capture€of€theÏsuspects,€including€Appellant,€the€testimony€of€Ms.€Giles€concerning€the€eventsÏleading€up€to€and€following€the€shooting,€and€the€conflicting€accounts€of€theÏshooting€offered€by€Appellant€permit€any€rational€trier€of€fact€to€conclude€thatÏAppellant€intentionally€shot€Adams€in€the€back€of€the€neck€during€an€attempt€toÏrob€the€store.€€The€facts€and€circumstances€of€this€case€are€sufficiently€strongÏand€cogent€to€exclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€every€other€reasonableÏhypothesis€save€the€guilt€of€Appellant.€€Thus,€we€find€that,€when€viewed€in€aÏlight€most€favorable€to€the€State,€the€evidence€is€legally€sufficient€to€supportÏAppellantððs€conviction€for€first€degree€murder.ò òÌÓ  ÓÌII.€€ADMISSION€OF€APPELLANTððS€SUICIDE€NOTEÓ  Óó óà àAppellant€alleges€thatÏthe€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€evidence€relating€to€a€suicide€note€written€by€himÍwhile€in€prison.€€In€the€note,€Appellant€states€that€he€ð ðdidnððt€want€to€kill€thatÏmanðð€and€that,€in€doing€so,€he€ð ðbroke€one€of€Godððs€rules.ðð€€Over€objection,€theÏtrial€court€permitted€the€State€to€cross„€examine€Appellant€regarding€the€note.€ÏAppellant€argues€that€evidence€pertaining€to€the€note€was€inadmissibleÏbecause€authorities€unconstitutionally€seized€it€from€his€jail€cell€in€violation€of€hisÏright€to€a€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy.€€ÌÌà àThe€United€States€Constitution€guarantees€ð ð[t]he€right€of€the€people€to€beÏsecure€in€their€persons,€houses,€papers,€and€effects,€against€unreasonableÏsearches€and€seizures€.€.€.€.ðð€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€IV.€€The€Constitution€of€theÏState€of€Tennessee€makes€a€similar€guarantee.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Const.€art€I,€ðð€7.€ÏThe€touchstone€of€unreasonable€search€and€seizure€analysis€is€ð ðwhether€aÏperson€has€a€ððconstitutionally€protected€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy.ððððÏòòState€v.€Bowlingóó,€867€S.W.2d€338,€341€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(quotingÏòòCalifornia€v.€Ciraoloóó,€476€U.S.€207,€211€(1986)).€€The€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€has€established€a€two„part€inquiry€for€determining€an€individualððsÏconstitutionally€protected€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy.€€First,€has€theÏindividual€manifested€a€subjective€expectation€of€privacy€in€the€object€of€theÏchallenged€search?€€Second,€is€society€willing€to€recognize€that€expectation€asÏreasonable?€€òòId.óóÌÌà àHere,€Appellant€has€failed€to€manifest€a€subjective€expectation€of€privacyÏin€his€suicide€note.€€The€constitutional€guarantees€against€unreasonableÏsearches€and€seizures€do€not€protect€what€an€individual€ð ðknowingly€extends€toÏthe€public.ðð€€òòBowlingóó,€867€S.W.2d€at€211€(quoting€òòKatz€v.€United€Statesóó,€389ÏU.S.€347,€351€(1986)).€€Clearly,€Appellant€drafted€the€suicide€note€with€theÏintention€that€others€read€it€and€gain€an€understanding€of€the€reasons€underlyingÏhis€planned€suicide.€€Furthermore,€society€is€unwilling€to€recognize€AppellantððsÏexpectation€of€privacy€as€reasonable.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€hasÏdetermined€that€prisoners€do€not€have€a€ð ðreasonable€or€legitimate€expectation€ofÏprivacy€in€the€confines€of€a€prison€cell.ðð€€òòState€v.€Dulsworthóó,€781€S.W.2d€277,Ï284€(Tenn.€1989)€(citing€òòHudson€v.€Palmeróó,€468€U.S.€517,€525„26€(1984)).€ÏUnder€this€two„part€inquiry,€Appellant€was€not€entitled€to€a€constitutionallyÏprotected€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy€with€regard€to€a€suicide€note€left€inÏhis€jail€cell.€€Furthermore,€even€assuming€òòarguendoóó€that€the€suicide€note€wasÏunconstitutionally€seized,€evidence€relating€to€the€note€was€still€admissible€for€theÏpurposes€of€impeachment.€€òòSeeóó€òòKimmelman€v.€Morrisonóó,€477€U.S.€365,€376Ï(1986);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Hopperóó,€695€S.W.2d€530,€539€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1985)€(finding€that€it€is€proper€to€use€unconstitutionally€seized€evidence€forÏimpeachment€purposes).€€Here,€the€State€questioned€Appellant€about€theÏsuicide€note€in€order€to€impeach€his€earlier€testimony€that€the€shooting€resultedÍfrom€a€struggle€instituted€by€the€victim.€€Thus,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€properlyÏadmitted€this€evidence.€ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.€€INDIVIDUAL€VOIR€DIREÌÓ  Óó óà àAppellant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€allow€individual€voirÏdire€of€the€jury.€€He€argues€that€individual€voir€dire€was€proper€because€of€theÏserious€nature€of€the€offense€and€the€tremendous€local€interest€in€theÏproceedings.ò ò€€ó óWe€note€initially€that€the€prevailing€practice€of€selecting€a€jury€is€toÏexamine€the€prospective€jurors€collectively.€€òòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,€529€S.W.2d€674,Ï681„82€(Tenn.€1975),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€506€U.S.€905€(1992);€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€554,€563€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Individual€voir€dire€is€mandated€onlyÏwhen€there€is€a€ð ðsignificant€possibilityðð€that€a€prospective€juror€has€beenÏexposed€to€potentially€prejudicial€material.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€65Ï(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€507€U.S.€954€(1993)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Porterfieldóó,€746ÏS.W.2d€441,€447€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€486€U.S.€1017€(1988)).€€The€supervisionÏof€voir€dire,€including€the€decision€of€whether€individual€voir€dire€is€appropriate,Ïrests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2dÏ253,€262€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€115€S.€Ct.€743€(1995).€€As€a€result,€thisÏCourt€must€uphold€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court€unless€the€defendant€establishesÏthe€existence€of€a€clear€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Raspberryóó,€875€S.W.2dÏ678,€681€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Appellant€has€failed€to€show,€or€evenÍspecifically€allege,€that€there€was€a€significant€possibility€that€a€prospective€jurorÏwas€exposed€to€potentially€prejudicial€material.€€Without€such€a€showing,€theÏtrial€judge€cannot€be€said€to€have€abused€his€discretion€in€denying€the€requestÏfor€individual€voir€dire.€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òIV.€€ADMISSION€OF€APPELLANTððS€STATEMENTÌÓ  Óó óà àAppellant€alleges€thatò ò€ó óthe€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€evidence€relating€toÏhis€statement€to€law€enforcement€authorities€concerning€the€shooting.€€AppellantÏargues€that€evidence€pertaining€to€the€statement€was€inadmissible€because,€atÏthe€time€the€statement€was€made,€he€was€in€a€weakened€physical€conditionÏdue€to€the€fact€that€he€had€spent€the€preceding€night€hiding€in€the€woods€andÏbecause€the€authorities€made€false€promises€of€leniency€in€an€effort€to€induceÏhis€statement.€€When€a€defendant€complains€of€an€improper€admission€of€anÏincriminating€statement,€this€Court€must€determine€if€the€statement€was€theÏproduct€of€the€defendantððs€voluntary€and€rational€choice€or€if€the€conduct€of€theÏinterrogators€overbore€the€defendantððs€will€to€resist€making€a€confession.€€òòStateÏv.€Kellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€726,€728„29€(Tenn.€1980).€€The€judgment€of€a€trial€court€atÏa€suppression€hearing€is€presumptively€correct€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.ÏStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544€(Tenn.€1994).€€This€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€may€only€be€overcome€on€appeal€if€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€against€the€determination€of€the€trial€court.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àHere,€the€trial€court€determined€that€Appellantððs€statement€to€lawÏenforcement€authorities€concerning€the€shooting€was€admissible,€finding€thatÏthere€was€no€indication€that€the€statement€was€anything€but€voluntary.€€DuringÏthe€pre„trial€suppression€hearing,€Appellant€testified€that€his€rights€wereÏexplained€to€him.€€Furthermore,€Appellant€admits€that€he€signed€a€waiver€formÏand€made€the€statement€of€his€own€free€will.€€The€investigators€who€tookÏAppellantððs€statement€testified€that€Appellant€gave€no€indication€that€he€did€notÏunderstand€his€rights€or€the€implications€of€his€signature€on€the€waiver€form.€€TheÏinvestigators€also€testified€that€Appellant€was€neither€threatened€nor€promisedÏleniency€in€return€for€his€statement.€€The€evidence€in€the€record€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€determination€of€the€trial€court€and€the€statement€wasÏproperly€admitted€into€evidence.€ò òÌó óÌÓ  Óò òV.€€IMPANELING€THE€JURYÌÓ  Óó óà àFinally,€Appellant€alleges€thatò ò€ó óthe€trial€court€erred€in€impaneling€the€jury.€ÏAppellant€maintains€that€the€trial€court€impaneled€eighteen€prospective€jurors,Ïseating€twelve€in€the€jury€box€and€six€in€the€front€of€the€courtroom.€€Trial€counselÏallegedly€conducted€voir€dire€on€the€entire€eighteen„member€panel€and€thenÏexercised€peremptory€challenges€on€the€twelve€members€seated€in€the€jury€box.€ÏThose€excused€from€the€jury€box€were€replaced€by€individuals€from€the€six„member€group€seated€in€front€and€as€needed,€the€group€in€front€wasÏsupplemented€with€members€of€the€remaining€panel,€and€additional€voir€direÏwas€conducted.€Appellant€argues€that€this€method€of€impaneling€the€juryÏviolates€the€spirit€and€intent€of€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24.€€Rule€24€provides€thatÏð ð[a]fter€twelve€prospective€jurors€have€been€passed€for€cause,€counsel€willÏsubmit€simultaneously€and€in€writing,€to€the€trial€judge,€the€name€of€any€jurorÏeither€counsel€elects€to€challenge€peremptorily.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(c)€(Supp.Ï1995).ÌÌà àA€departure€from€the€prescribed€method€of€jury€selection€will€not€invalidateÏthe€verdict€in€a€criminal€trial€absent€a€showing€of€prejudice€to€the€accused€or€aÏfinding€that€constitutionally€impermissible€discrimination€occurred€in€the€selectionÏprocess.€€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€865€S.W.2d€455,€458€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.ÏGladishóó,€No.€02C01„9404„CC„00070,€1995€WL€695125,€at€*8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.ÏNov.€1,€1995),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1996).€€It€is€the€burden€of€theÏdefendant€to€prove€prejudice€or€discrimination.€€òòColemanóó€at€458.€€There€is€noÏevidence€in€this€record€establishing€either€prejudice€or€discrimination€in€the€methodÍof€jury€selection.€€Thus,€there€is€no€reversible€error€with€respect€to€this€issue.× ƒ+ ××  ×ÌÌÌÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓà àÔ€%XÔÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGE