ÿWPCG …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U*Ï B)ù DC" AMe² BÁv~ÞvÓ\ D3/ 0@b AO¢Æñ 0D· D/û B*˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ì Uí Dî Dï Tð Dñ Vò Dó \eô Dõ Ó€uM%3|xþ 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌAugust€12,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€WXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òœÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌAPRIL€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€à àà à)€€€€€€€C.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9704„CR„00158Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àà àAppellee,ò òà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€HON.€THOMAS€H.€SHRIVER,ÏJUDGEó óÌò òJAMES€C.€NICHOLS,à àà àà à)€€€€€€€ó óà àÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà à)ó óà àÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àò òà à)€€€€€€€(FIRST€DEGREE€MURDER)Ìó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òKARL€DEAN€à àà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌò òJEFFREY€A.€DeVASHERà àà àà àTIMOTHY€F.€BEHANÌó óAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ(On€Appeal)à àà àà àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ìò òROBERT€M.€ROBINSONó óà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243Ìò òMARY€GRIFFINó óÌAssistant€Public€Defenders€à àà àà àò òVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON,€IIIÌó ó1202€Stahlman€Buildingà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€TN€37201Ì(At€Trial)à àà àà àà àà àà àò òNICHOLAS€D.€BAILEY€Ìó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà0 àà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue€North,€Suite€500Ì€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€ °Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant,€James€C.€Nichols,€appeals€as€of€right€from€his€conviction€inÏthe€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court.€€Following€a€jury€trial,€the€Defendant€wasÏconvicted€of€first€degree€murder€and€was€sentenced€as€a€career€offender€to€serve€Ïa€life€sentence€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€In€this€appeal,€theÏDefendant€argues€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓà8 à1)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€Defendantððs€motion€toÏsuppress€statements€made€to€the€police;ÌÌà8 à2)€Whether€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€DefendantððsÏconviction€for€first€degree€murder;ÌÌà8 à3)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€admission€of€prior€threatsÏby€the€Defendant€against€the€victim€during€the€Stateððs€case„in„chief;ÏandÌÌà8 à4)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€Defendantððs€motions€(a)Ïfor€an€amended€instruction€on€the€range€of€punishment€and€(b)€toÏstrike€the€portion€of€the€range€of€punishment€instruction€which€advisesÏthe€jury€of€the€minimum€length€of€time€Defendant€would€serve€prior€toÏparole€eligibility.€ÌÌWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌÓÓÌà@ àòòI.€€Motion€to€suppress€statementsóóÌÌà àThe€Defendant€gave€several€statements€to€both€arresting€and€investigatingÏofficers€on€the€day€of€the€stabbing,€September€24,€1994,€and€the€following€day,ÏSeptember€25,€1994.€€€These€statements€were€made€both€spontaneously€prior€toÏarrest€and€after€Defendant€had€been€arrested.€€Defendant€claims€that€he€was€soÏintoxicated€while€making€the€statements€made€on€September€24,€1994,€that€he€didÏnot€voluntarily€or€knowingly€waive€his€rights€as€according€to€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,Ï384€U.S.€436,€86€S.€Ct.€1602,€16€L.€Ed.€2d€694€(1966).€ÌÌà àBefore€a€Defendant€can€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waive€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,Ïthe€Defendant€must€be€ð ðadequately€and€effectively€apprised€of€his€rights.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€326€(Tenn.€1992)(citations€omitted).€€If€the€waiver€isÏmade€ð ðvoluntarily,€knowingly€and€intelligently€ð ðthen€a€Defendant€may€waive€hisÏrights.€€òòMirandaóó,€384€U.S.€at€444;€86€S.€Ct.€at€1612.€€The€burden€of€proving€theÏwaiver€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€toÏsuppress€is€on€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€500€(Tenn.€1997).€€InÏdetermining€whether€a€Defendant€has€validly€waived€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€courtsÏmust€look€to€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€326.€ÏRecently,€in€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18€(Tenn.€1996),€the€supreme€court€heldÏas€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€party€prevailing€in€the€trial€court€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearingÏas€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€beÍdrawn€from€that€evidence.€€So€long€as€the€greater€weight€of€theÏevidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€findings,€those€findings€shall€beÏupheld.€€In€other€words,€a€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€a€suppressionÏhearing€will€be€upheld€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€ÌÓÓÌòòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€23.ÌÌà àOfficer€David€Howard€testified€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€when€heÏarrived€on€the€scene€of€the€stabbing€he€entered€the€Defendantððs€home€and€calledÏto€the€Defendant.€€The€house€was€dark€and€Officer€Howard€was€using€a€flashlightÏto€approach€the€Defendant€in€the€back€of€the€house.€€As€Howard€approached,€theÏDefendant€kept€repeating€that€ð ð[he]€stabbed€her.ðð€€Howard€had€not€directed€anyÏquestions€towards€the€Defendant€at€that€time.€€After€Defendant€made€theÏincriminating€statements,€Howard€handcuffed€him€and€read€him€his€òòMirandaóó€rightsÏas€he€was€arrested.€€Defendant€indicated€that€he€understood€those€rights€and€thatÏhe€did€not€want€a€lawyer.€€Nearly€forty€(40)€minutes€later€after€the€other€detectivesÏarrived,€the€Defendant€was€sitting€in€the€back€of€the€police€car€when€he€stated,€ð ðIÏjust€jammed€the€knife€in€her€ass€as€far€as€I€could.ðð€€Howard€described€theÏDefendant€as€being€in€a€jovial€mood.€€While€Howard€thought€Defendant€had€beenÏdrinking€as€he€noticed€the€odor€of€alcohol,€the€Defendant€seemed€lucid€in€hisÏcomments€and€there€was€nothing€that€indicated€his€level€of€intoxication€caused€himÏto€be€unable€or€incompetent€to€understand€his€rights.ÌÌà àOfficer€David€Imhoff€arrived€at€the€scene€of€the€stabbing€after€the€DefendantÏhad€already€been€arrested€and€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€Defendant€wasÏplaced€in€the€back€of€Imhoffððs€patrol€car€while€Imhoff€received€information€from€him€toÏfill€out€an€arrest€report.€€While€Imhoff€did€not€ask€Defendant€any€questions€relating€toÏthe€stabbing,€the€Defendant€blurted€out€that€ð ð[I]€stabbed€that€goddamn€son€of€aÏbitch.€€She€tried€to€cut€me€and€I€took€up€for€myself.€€I€took€the€knife€from€her€andÏstuck€it€up€her€ass.€€I€made€a€mistake.€€I€did€it.€€Iððd€die€if€it€were€fatal,€but€she€is€aÏfat€old€bitch.ðð€€Ìà àInvestigator€Scott€Billingsby€arrived€while€the€Defendant€was€still€on€theÏscene.€€Billingsby€determined€that€Defendant€had€previously€been€advised€of€hisÏòòMirandaóó€rights€by€Officer€Howard.€€Defendant€was€transported€to€the€rear€ofÏBillingsbyððs€patrol€car.€€The€first€statements€Defendant€made€were,€ð ðBlow€myÏgoddamn€brains€out.€€I€cut€her.€€I€stuck€a€knife€in€her.ðð€€From€that€point€on,€BillingsbyÏquestioned€the€Defendant€regarding€the€facts€of€the€crime.€€After€transporting€theÏDefendant€to€the€Domestic€Violence€Office€for€further€questioning,€Defendant€wasÏagain€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€and€he€signed€a€waiver€of€those€rights.€ÏDefendant€indicated€he€understood€his€rights€at€that€time.€€He€did€not€request€anÏattorney.€Defendantððs€oral€statement€to€the€police€was€taped.€€In€addition€to€theÏtape,€Defendant€wrote€a€handwritten€account€regarding€the€incident€and€hisÏinvolvement.€€On€the€following€day,€Defendant€was€again€advised€of€his€rights€andÍwaived€them.€€Billingsby€recalled€that€there€were€no€major€contradictions€betweenÏthe€following€dayððs€statement€and€that€of€the€previous€evening.€€ÌÌà àBillingsby€smelled€the€odor€of€alcoholic€beverages€on€the€Defendant.€€InÏresponse€to€the€trial€courtððs€questioning,€Billingsby€stated€that€the€Defendant€wasÏnot€so€intoxicated€as€to€not€understand€what€he€was€stating.€€While€BillingsbyÏbelieved€that€Defendant€was€intoxicated€at€the€scene,€he€could€not€determine€whatÏlevel€of€intoxication€Defendant€was€suffering€from.€€While€the€Defendant€was€laterÏmore€coherent€in€regards€to€questioning,€Billingsby€thought€that€he€alwaysÏunderstood€what€was€being€asked€of€him€and€understood€his€rights.€€In€addition,ÏBillingsby€observed€that€Defendantððs€version€of€the€events€which€occurred€thatÏnight€has€not€changed€since€his€earliest€statements€at€the€scene.ÌÌà àDefendant€testified€that€on€September€24,€1994,€he€and€the€victim€hadÏfinished€two€(2)€half€gallons€of€Wild€Irish€Rose€wine.€€They€were€consuming€theÏthird€when€the€stabbing€occurred.€€Defendant€recalled€that€the€police€came€to€hisÏhome€that€evening,€but€he€did€not€recall€what€was€said€nor€did€he€recall€beingÏadvised€of€his€rights.€€He€did€not€remember€being€asked€to€sign€a€waiver€of€rights,Ïalthough€he€admitted€that€the€signature€on€the€waiver€of€rights€form€was€similar€toÏhis€own€signature.€€Defendant€did€recall€sitting€in€a€room€with€two€(2)€or€three€(3)Ïpolice€officers€talking€to€him,€but€he€could€not€remember€what€was€discussed.€ÍDefendant€recalled€giving€a€statement€to€the€police€and€signing€a€waiver€of€rightsÏform€on€the€following€day.€€Defendant€admitted€he€was€an€alcoholic€and€drank€onÏa€daily€basis.€€Ìœ›à àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€statements€were€admissible€as€they€wereÏvoluntarily€made.€€Any€statements€made€prior€to€Defendant€being€given€hisÏòòMirandaóó€warnings€were€spontaneous€and€were€made€prior€to€Defendantððs€beingÏplaced€in€custody.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€òòMirandaóó€provides€that€warningÏrequirements€are€not€required€if€the€defendant€makes€a€spontaneous€statementÏbefore€police€officers€have€investigated€or€targeted€a€suspect.€€òòSeeóó€òòMirandaóó,€384ÏU.S.€at€478,€86€S.€Ct.€at€1630;€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€664€S.W.2d€318€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1983),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1984).€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€reasoned€that€the€only€issue€was€whether€the€Defendant€wasÏso€intoxicated€that€he€did€not€understand€what€he€was€doing€to€himself€by€makingÏthese€incriminating€statements€or€was€incapable€of€understanding€the€òòMirandaóóÏwarnings.€€It€found€there€was€no€testimony€that€Defendant€was€so€intoxicated€thatÏhe€did€not€understand€the€warnings.ÌÌà àConsidering€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€the€evidence€shows€that€theÏDefendant€was€properly€advised€of€his€rights€and€had€the€capacity€to€understandÏthose€rights.€€While€the€Defendantððs€testimony€is€contradictory€to€that€of€the€arrestingÍofficers,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€Defendant€made€a€knowing,€voluntaryÏand€intelligent€waiver€of€his€rights€and€accredited€the€testimony€of€the€police€officers.€ÏIntoxication€does€not€render€a€defendantððs€confession€invalid€if€the€evidence€showsÏthat€he€was€capable€of€understanding€and€waiving€his€rights.€€òòState€v.€Bellóó,€690ÏS.W.2d€879,€882€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.)€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1985).€€Even€ifÏDefendant€were€intoxicated€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€Defendant€made€a€similarÏstatement€on€September€25,€1995,€€which€he€is€not€seeking€to€suppress.€€TheÏDefendant€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden.€€òòSeeóó€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€23.€€The€trialÏcourt€properly€denied€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌà@ àòòII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€evidenceóóÌÌà àDefendant€argues€that€there€was€insufficient€evidence€to€support€the€findingÏthat€he€killed€the€victim€with€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€When€an€accusedÏchallenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€the€standard€is€whether,€afterÏreviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rationalÏtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€On€appeal,€theÏState€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferencesÏtherefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Because€aÏverdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€it€with€aÍpresumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€court€of€illustrating€why€theÏevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.ÏTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476Ï(Tenn.€1973).ÌÌà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1987).€€Nor€may€this€courtÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€A€jury€verdictÏapproved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€allÏconflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€476.€€ÌÌà àMia€Ambrose,€the€niece€of€the€victim,€Barbara€Sue€Oakley,€testified€that€theÏvictim€was€visiting€in€her€home€in€Franklin€during€the€month€of€August€1994.€€€Prior€toÏthat€time,€Oakley€had€been€living€with€Steve€Smith€for€a€period€of€one€(1)€year.€ÏAmbrose€recalled€that€while€Oakley€was€in€her€home,€the€Defendant€called€herÏhome€looking€for€Oakley.€€Oakley€and€the€Defendant€had€previously€residedÏtogether€for€ten€(10)€or€twelve€(12)€years.€€After€Oakley€and€the€Defendant€spoke,ÏOakley€asked€Ambrose€to€take€her€to€the€Defendantððs€home€in€Nashville.€€A€fewÏdays€later,€Ambrose€and€her€three€(3)€year€old€daughter€returned€to€theÍDefendantððs€home€to€visit€her€aunt.€€While€Ambrose€was€there,€she€noticed€thatÏOakley€and€the€Defendant€were€drinking€heavily.€€When€Oakley€drank,€AmbroseÏrecalled€that€she€was€very€happy.€€The€Defendant€repeatedly€argued€with€OakleyÏregarding€her€activities,€particularly€regarding€her€relationship€with€Steve€Smith.€ÏAccording€to€Ambrose,€Defendant€was€planning€to€share€an€apartment€inÏNashville€with€Smith.€€ÌÌà àOn€one€occasion,€Ambrose€and€Oakley€were€talking€about€Oakleyððs€plansÏto€leave€the€Defendant€and€to€return€to€live€with€Steve€Smith.€€The€DefendantÏwalked€in,€having€overheard€the€conversation,€and€said,€ð ðOh,€so€youððre€thinkingÏabout€leaving€.€.€.€I€donððt€think€so.€€It€would€be€over€my€dead€body.€€You€know,€IððdÏkill€you€first.ðð€€The€final€day€Ambrose€was€at€Defendantððs€home,€Oakley€andÏDefendant€were€arguing€and€Defendant€was€throwing€things€at€her.€€He€grabbedÏa€knife,€pointed€it€at€her€neck€and€said€he€would€kill€her.€€Ambrose€immediatelyÏdecided€to€leave€and€begged€her€aunt€to€accompany€her.€€A€week€later,€AmbroseÏlearned€that€Oakley€had€been€stabbed€by€the€Defendant.ÌÌà àJoann€Leeper,€mother€of€Steve€Smith,€kept€in€touch€with€Oakley€after€sheÏand€Smith€ended€their€relationship.€€Oakley€came€to€her€home€several€times€andÏcalled€often.€€Leeper€went€to€the€Defendantððs€home€to€talk€with€Oakley€becauseÏshe€was€concerned€that€the€Defendant€might€try€to€hurt€her.€€While€she€was€there,Íshe€met€the€Defendant.€€Oakley€assured€Leeper€that€she€was€alright.€€On€the€dayÏof€the€stabbing€in€September,€Oakley€and€Defendant€came€to€Leeperððs€home.€ÏOakley€and€Leeper€were€planning€a€trip€to€Columbia€to€see€Smith.€Oakley€and€theÏDefendant€left€Leeperððs€home€to€make€some€copies,€and€when€they€returned€theyÏboth€appeared€to€have€been€drinking.€€The€Defendant€appeared€angry€andÏagitated€when€Leeper€and€Oakley€discussed€their€plans€for€visiting€Smith€the€nextÏday.€€Oakley€was€stabbed€later€that€day€after€leaving€Leeperððs€home.€€ÌÌà àRobert€Spence,€next€door€neighbor€to€the€Defendant€at€22€Waters€Avenue,Ïsaw€Oakley€on€September€24,€1994,€around€4:00€p.m.€€Oakley€was€mowingÏSpenceððs€grass€while€Spence€was€working€on€his€car.€€The€Defendant€came€overÏin€Spenceððs€yard€and€wanted€the€mower.€€When€Oakley€refused€to€giveÏDefendant€the€mower,€Defendant€told€her€he€would€take€her€in€the€house€andÏð ðwhoop€her€ass.ðð€€Oakley€shrugged€off€the€comment.€€Spence€observed€theÏcouple€fighting€and€arguing€every€day,€with€the€Defendant€constantly€threateningÏOakley.€€Defendant€had€threatened€to€kill€Oakley€and€bragged€that€he€had€givenÏher€a€black€eye.€€Spence€related€that€Oakley€had€a€black€eye€every€month.€€ÌÌà àSpence€left€his€home€at€5:45€p.m.€on€September€24,€1994€and€returned€atÏmidnight.€€As€he€was€driving€up€the€road,€he€saw€the€crime€scene€tape€all€over€the€ÏDefendantððs€home.€€When€he€pulled€in€his€driveway,€he€noticed€a€horrible€odor.€ÍThere€was€a€trail€of€blood€from€their€house€to€his€house,€all€over€his€yard,€porch,Ïand€door.€€ÌÌà àCurly€Schmidt€lives€at€24€Waters€Avenue,€two€(2)€houses€down€from€theÏDefendant.€€Prior€to€September€24,€1994,€she€did€not€know€the€Defendant€orÏOakley.€€On€that€date,€she€heard€a€knock€on€the€door€and€when€she€opened€it,€aÏwoman€with€blood€all€over€her€blouse€stood€there.€€She€asked€Schmidt€to€call€911.€ÏWhile€Schmidt€called€911,€the€woman€entered€her€home€and€sat€on€the€couch.€ÏShe€was€still€bleeding€and€looked€sleepy.€€Schmidt€stayed€on€the€telephone€untilÏthe€ambulance€arrived.€€No€one€appeared€at€Schmidtððs€home€looking€for€the€victim.€ÏOakley€told€Schmidt€who€had€stabbed€her.€€ÌÌà àOfficer€Mark€Chestnutt€is€a€detective€sergeant€with€the€Metropolitan€PoliceÏDepartment.€€During€September€1994€he€was€sergeant€over€the€Patrol€Division€forÏthe€lower€East€Nashville€area.€€He€responded€to€a€call€from€the€dispatcher€thatÏthere€had€been€a€stabbing€at€McCarn€Street€from€an€incident€of€domestic€violence.ÏA€later€call€stated€that€Oakley€was€at€a€location€on€Waters€Street.€€WhenÏChestnutt€arrived,€the€ambulance€personnel€were€already€there€and€Oakley€wasÏsitting€on€the€couch€being€treated€for€her€injuries.€€After€Oakley€was€placed€in€theÏambulance,€Chestnutt€went€to€the€McCarn€address€where€the€Defendant€was€inÍcustody.€€He€noticed€the€cut€on€Defendantððs€pinky€finger,€but€when€he€was€treatedÏby€Medcom€it€was€not€serious€enough€to€require€a€trip€to€the€hospital.ÌÌà àOfficer€David€Howard€responded€to€the€call€from€816€McCarn€Avenue€onÏSeptember€24,€1994.€€Howard€entered€the€back€door€and€called€out€for€theÏDefendant.€€Defendant€was€in€the€living€room€and€it€was€dark,€so€Howard€usedÏhis€flashlight€and€ordered€Defendant€to€face€away€from€him.€€The€DefendantÏrepeatedly€stated€that€he€stabbed€Oakley.€€At€one€point,€he€blurted€out,€ð ðI€jammedÏit€up€her€ass€as€far€as€I€could.ðð€€Howard€put€the€Defendant€in€handcuffs€and€readÏhim€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€then€asked€him€for€the€location€of€the€weapon.€€TheÏDefendant€pointed€to€a€knife€in€the€floor€in€front€of€the€refrigerator.€€The€knife€had€aÏfive€(5)€or€six€(6)€inch€blade.€€While€the€Defendant€was€laughing€and€appeared€toÏhave€been€drinking,€he€stated€that€he€understood€his€rights.€€Howard€observed€theÏwound€on€Defendantððs€pinky€finger€and€saw€that€it€was€a€small€cut.€€He€also€sawÏtwo€(2)€knives€behind€the€kitchen€sink€that€had€recently€been€washed.€€ÌÌà àDetective€David€Imhoff€was€working€in€the€patrol€division€on€the€date€of€theÏincident.€€He€first€received€a€call€of€a€stabbing€on€McCarn€Street€and€then€a€relatedÏcall€at€Waters€Avenue.€€€When€Imhoff€arrived€on€the€scene€at€Waters€Avenue,ÏOakley€was€lying€on€a€gurney€being€taken€out€of€the€house.€€Imhoff€then€walkedÏover€to€McCarn€Street€where€Officer€Howard€was€holding€the€Defendant.€ÍDefendant€was€placed€in€Imhoffððs€patrol€car,€and€then€Imhoff€got€in€his€car€andÏbegan€to€fill€out€an€arrest€report.€€Howard€advised€Imhoff€that€Defendant€had€beenÏadvised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€While€Imhoff€filled€out€the€report,€Defendant€stated,€ð ðIÏstabbed€that€goddamn€son€of€a€bitch.€€She€tried€to€cut€me€and€I€took€up€for€myself.€ÏI€took€the€knife€from€her€and€I€stuck€it€up€her€ass.€€I€made€a€mistake.€€I€did€it.€€Iððd€dieÏif€it€were€fatal.€€She€is€a€fat€old€bitch.ðð€€Imhoff€was€not€questioning€the€DefendantÏwhen€he€made€that€statement.€€Imhoff€later€removed€him€from€his€car€and€placedÏhim€in€Detective€Scott€Billingsbyððs€vehicle€to€be€transported.€€Imhoff€observed€aÏsmall€cut€on€Defendantððs€pinky€finger.€€Imhoff€went€inside€the€Defendantððs€homeÏand€observed€blood€throughout€the€residence€and€a€knife€on€the€kitchen€floor.€€ÌÌà àScott€Billingsby€works€as€a€detective€in€the€Domestic€Violence€Division.€€HeÏarrived€on€the€scene€at€7:23€p.m.€€As€the€lead€investigator,€he€spoke€with€theÏofficers€already€present€and€examined€the€house€and€the€evidence.€€BillingsbyÏnoticed€that€€at€the€kitchen€table,€a€struggle€had€evidently€taken€place€as€thereÏwas€sugar€and€a€bag€of€chips€strewn€about€on€the€floor.€€There€was€blood€in€theÏfloor€and€a€partially€open€silverware€drawer€with€blood€on€it.€€A€trail€of€blood€led€toÏthe€back€door€from€the€kitchen€table,€and€another€trail€of€blood€led€from€the€tableÏthrough€the€den€into€the€living€room€where€the€telephone€was€located.€€Two€knivesÏfound€near€the€kitchen€sink€appeared€to€have€blood€residue€on€them.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€still€on€the€scene€and€Billingsby€was€advised€by€OfficerÏHoward€that€Defendant€had€previously€been€advised€of€his€constitutional€rights.€ÏThe€first€thing€the€Defendant€stated€to€Billingsby€was,€ð ð€Blow€my€goddamn€brainsÏout.€€I€cut€her.€€I€stuck€her.ðð€€At€that€point,€Billingsby€began€to€question€DefendantÏand€Defendant€told€him€there€were€two€ð ðcuttingsðð€in€the€kitchen.€€ÌÌà àBillingsby€removed€Defendant€from€the€scene€and€took€him€to€theÏDepartment€of€Domestic€Violence.€€Once€they€arrived€at€the€unit,€Billingsby€againÏadvised€Defendant€of€his€constitutional€rights€and€then€Defendant€executed€aÏwritten€waiver€acknowledging€that€he€understood€his€rights.€€Throughout€the€night,ÏDefendant€became€unclear€regarding€exactly€where€the€stabbings€occurred.€ÏDefendant€was€consistent€during€questioning€that€Oakley€cut€him€and€then€heÏð ðstuckðð€her.€€Sometimes€Defendant€stated€that€he€took€the€knife€away€from€OakleyÏand€ð ðstuckðð€her€with€it,€and€at€other€times€he€stated€that€he€obtained€another€knifeÏand€then€ð ðstuckðð€her.€€Tapes€were€made€of€Defendantððs€statements€to€the€police,Ïand€these€tapes€were€played€for€the€jury€as€evidence.€€Defendant€also€wrote€aÏhandwritten€statement€during€the€course€of€the€questioning.€€The€statement€readsÏas€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àMe€and€my€wife€were€in€the€kitchen€as€near€as€my€recollection€recalls.€ÏShe€cut€me€with€a€pearing€[sic]€knife€and€I€took€it€away€from€her€andÏstuck€it€in€her€gut.€€She€immediately€ran€out€the€back€door€and€I€wentÏand€called€911€for€emergency€because€I€love€my€wife.ÌÌà àThank€you!Ìà àJames€Carl€NicholsÌÌÓÓà àThe€following€day,€Billingsby€was€notified€that€Oakley€was€not€expected€toÏlive.€€The€Homicide€Unit€was€advised€of€the€crime€and€Billingsby€met€with€DetectiveÏDavid€Miller€who€took€over€the€investigation.€€He€and€Miller€again€spoke€with€theÏDefendant€on€September€25,€1994.€€Miller€advised€Defendant€of€his€constitutionalÏrights€and€Defendant€agreed€to€talk€with€them.€€Defendant€stated€that€he€andÏOakley€were€at€the€table€when€they€became€involved€in€an€argument.€€Oakley€cutÏhim€on€the€finger€so€he€got€up,€walked€into€the€kitchen€to€obtain€a€knife€and€thenÏstuck€her€with€the€knife€once.€€Throughout€all€the€questioning,€Defendant€onlyÏrecalled€stabbing€Oakley€one€(1)€time.€€ÌÌà àDetective€David€Miller€led€the€homicide€investigation€of€Oakleyððs€death.€€AfterÏbeing€advised€of€the€situation,€Miller€and€Billingsby€interviewed€the€Defendant.€ÏDefendant€was€advised€of€his€constitutional€rights€and€told€the€detectives€that€heÏhad€been€home€drinking€that€day.€€He€was€sitting€at€the€kitchen€table€with€OakleyÏwhen€they€got€into€an€argument,€although€he€could€not€be€sure€what€the€argumentÏwas€about.€€Defendant€got€up€from€the€table,€went€over€to€the€drain€rack,€got€aÏknife€and€stabbed€her.€€Defendant€also€said€his€finger€had€been€cut€but€was€notÏsure€if€Oakley€cut€it€or€how€it€got€cut.€€ÌÌà àJoe€Minor,€special€agent€for€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€and€theÏForensic€Services€Division,€received€blood€samples€from€a€knife€involved€in€thisÏcase.€€Only€one€(1)€knife€found€at€the€scene€had€enough€blood€from€which€toÏobtain€a€sample.€€A€blood€sample€was€also€obtained€from€the€Defendant.€€A€DNAÏprofile€was€done€on€the€Defendant,€and€it€was€determined€that€the€blood€on€theÏknife€did€not€match€the€Defendantððs.ÌÌà àDr.€William€Miles€was€working€in€the€emergency€room€when€Oakley€wasÏbrought€into€Vanderbilt€Hospital.€€When€she€arrived,€Oakley€was€combative€andÏher€blood€pressure€and€oxygen€levels€were€extremely€low.€€Dr.€Miles€establishedÏI.V.€lines€and€used€a€breathing€tube€and€a€mechanical€ventilator€to€control€herÏairway.€€In€order€to€provide€Oakley€with€the€rapid€introduction€of€fluids€into€her€bodyÏthat€she€needed€in€order€to€survive,€he€established€a€central€venous€lineÏunderneath€her€clavicle.€€While€it€was€impossible€to€determine€how€much€bloodÏOakley€had€lost€by€the€time€she€arrived€at€the€emergency€room,€it€was€obvious€byÏher€near€death€condition€that€she€had€lost€a€great€deal€of€blood.€€ÌÌà àOakley€had€three€wounds.€€She€had€a€several€inch€wound€to€her€upperÏchest€close€to€the€left€side€of€her€collarbone€which€was€through€the€muscle€and€intoÏthe€chest€cavity€itself.€€She€had€two€(2)€wounds€to€her€abdomen,€both€in€the€leftÏquadrant€of€the€belly.€€All€three€(3)€wounds€were€stab€wounds.€€In€order€to€assessÍthe€severity€of€her€chest€wound,€Dr.€Miles€inserted€a€chest€tube€to€determine€whatÏbleeding€had€occurred€within€the€chest€wall.€€After€she€was€stabilized€to€the€pointÏthat€she€could€be€transported€for€surgery,€she€was€taken€to€surgery€to€address€theÏbleeding€from€the€abdomen.€€Prior€to€surgery,€given€the€amount€of€injuries€andÏOakleyððs€degree€of€obesity,€Dr.€Miles€estimated€a€fifty€(50)€to€seventy„five€(75)Ïpercent€chance€that€she€would€not€survive.€€ÌÌà àDuring€surgery,€Dr.€Miles€found€that€the€two€(2)€stab€wounds€to€OakleyððsÏabdomen€were€the€most€life„threatening.€€In€addition€to€five€(5)€inches€of€OakleyððsÏown€body€tissue,€the€stab€wound€had€penetrated€the€diaphragm€muscle,€theÏstomach,€and€both€the€large€and€small€intestines€all€the€way€through€to€theÏpancreas€gland.€€It€would€require€a€great€deal€of€force€for€the€weapon€to€go€to€thisÏdepth€through€someone€as€large€as€Oakley.€€Dr.€Miles€stated€that€each€of€theseÏthree€(3)€wounds€were€potentially€life€threatening.€€Any€time€there€are€injuries€of€thisÏdegree€to€a€person€the€size€of€Oakley,€there€is€a€high€potential€for€an€increase€inÏmortality.€€He€estimated€her€chances€for€survival€after€surgery€at€fifty€(50)€percent.€€ÌÌà àWhile€Oakleyððs€blood€pressure€and€vital€signs€had€stabilized,€she€was€notÏin€stable€condition.€€She€was€monitored€closely,€particularly€due€to€her€low€intake€ofÏoxygen.€€Shortly€before€9:00€a.m.€on€September€25,€1994,€Oakley€becameÏagitated€and€was€thrashing€about.€€She€was€given€a€sedative€and€was€givenÍmore€fluid.€€When€her€blood€pressure€dropped€to€an€extremely€low€level,€Dr.€MilesÏwas€called€to€her€bedside€because€she€had€turned€blue.€€A€needle€was€insertedÏinto€her€chest€and€some€fluid€came€back,€so€Dr.€Miles€made€an€incision€to€drain€theÏfluid€from€her€chest.€€Oakleyððs€heart€stopped€beating.€€The€fluid€was€present€in€herÏchest€because€the€catheter€inserted€into€her€chest€became€dislodged.€€ThisÏdislodging€is€a€recognized€risk€factor€for€this€type€of€injury€and€this€treatment.€€WhileÏDr.€Miles€worked€for€a€long€period€of€time€to€revive€Oakley,€she€suffered€anotherÏcardiac€arrest.€€As€a€result,€even€after€being€revived,€she€suffered€severe€brainÏdamage€due€to€the€low€level€of€oxygen€to€the€brain.€€Oakley€was,€in€fact,€nearlyÏbrain€dead.€€Even€with€deep€stimulation,€she€would€barely€move€her€head€whichÏwas€evidence€of€significant€abnormal€brain€disfunction.€€Her€prognosis€was€veryÏgrim€and€her€family€was€notified.€€Her€family€determined€that€if€her€heart€stopped,Ïshe€was€not€to€be€revived.€€Oakleyððs€heart€rate€and€vital€signs€subsequentlyÏdeteriorated€and€stopped.ÌÌà àDr.€Jesse€Giles€conducted€the€autopsy€of€Oakley€on€October€1,€1994.€€HeÏsummarized€her€anatomical€diagnoses€as€three€(3)€penetrating€stab€wounds,Ïsevere€obesity,€no€preexisting€detected€cardiovascular€disease,€and€post€acuteÏexploratory€chest€and€abdomen€surgeries.€€He€found€the€cause€of€death€to€beÏcomplications€of€stab€wounds€of€the€chest€and€the€abdomen.€€He€listed€OakleyððsÏobesity€as€a€contributing€factor.€Oakleyððs€blood€loss,€pancreas€injury,€decreasedÍlung€function€to€the€left€side,€and€high€blood€alcohol€all€set€into€motion€the€increasedÏlack€of€oxygen€to€the€brain.€€The€complications€were€foreseeable€risks€for€someoneÏin€her€condition€to€encounter€during€the€course€of€treatment.€€Dr.€Giles€determined€theÏmanner€of€death€to€be€homicide.€€ÌÌà àThe€State€rested€its€case„in„chief.ÌÌà àDr.€Mona€Gretel€Case€Harlan€testified€that€she€reviewed€the€medical€recordÏof€Oakley,€including€the€autopsy€report,€the€post„mortem€photographs,€the€deathÏcertificate€and€the€emergency€medical€service€and€hospital€records.€€Following€herÏreview€of€all€the€records,€Dr.€Harlan€concluded€that€even€though€Oakley€had€Ïadditional€risk€factors€for€being€prone€to€serious€injury€and€death€from€stab€woundsÏdue€to€her€obesity€and€alcohol€abuse,€she€did€not€die€as€a€result€of€obviousÏcomplications€from€the€wounds€such€as€infection,€blood€loss,€or€blood€clots.€ÏInstead,€she€died€as€a€result€of€a€brain€injury€from€the€low€oxygen€to€the€brainÏcaused€by€a€dislodged€chest€tube.€Dr.€Harlan€stated€that€this€was€not€anÏexpected€complication€of€having€a€right€subclavian€catheter€inserted,€but€that€it€canÏhappen.€€While€the€doctors€did€find€the€dislodged€catheter,€the€catheter€wasÏdislodged€for€too€long€a€period€of€time.€€Ultimately,€Dr.€Harlan€found€that€she€died€asÏa€complication€of€the€treatment€of€the€stab€wounds,€a€complication€caused€by€theÏhospital.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€testified€that€he€was€living€with€his€mother€and€Oakley€inÏSeptember€1994.€€On€September€24,€1994,€he€and€Oakley€awoke€and€went€to€aÏchurch€rummage€sale.€€On€the€way€home,€Oakley€drove€to€the€liquor€store€to€get€aÏdrink.€€The€Defendant€resisted€but€eventually€agreed€and€bought€a€half€gallon€ofÏwine.€€They€went€home€and€drank€the€wine€while€they€worked€around€the€houseÏand€€Oakley€mowed€the€front€yard€of€their€next€door€neighbor,€Robert€Spence.€€Ms.ÏLeeper€called€and€asked€them€to€take€some€papers€to€the€drug€store€and€makeÏphotocopies,€so€they€drove€to€her€home€and€then€went€to€the€drug€store€.€€WhenÏthey€left€the€drug€store,€he€and€Oakley€bought€another€half€gallon€of€wine€at€theÏliquor€store.€€They€dropped€off€the€papers€and€returned€home€around€2:00€p.m.€ÏThey€drank€the€wine€at€home,€then€returned€to€the€liquor€store€for€another€half€gallonÏof€Wild€Irish€Rose.€€ÌÌà àThey€were€sitting€at€home€at€the€kitchen€table€drinking€wine€and€talking€whenÏOakley€asked€Defendant€to€borrow€$50.00€from€his€boss.€€Defendant€refused€andÏthey€began€to€argue.€€Oakley€became€angry,€picked€up€a€knife€off€the€table€andÏcut€the€Defendantððs€hand.€€When€that€occurred,€he€grabbed€her€by€the€wrist€andÏshe€started€to€dig€the€knife€into€the€back€of€his€wrist.€€He€got€out€of€his€chair€andÏOakley€grabbed€the€front€of€his€shirt.€€The€Defendant€panicked€and€grabbedÏanother€knife€lying€on€the€counter.€€He€stuck€her€with€the€knife,€cutting€her€across€theÍshoulder,€€so€that€she€would€let€go€of€him.€€Oakley€dropped€her€knife€and€threw€herÏhands€up€in€the€air,€then€the€Defendant€stepped€away€and€dropped€his€knife€toÏthe€floor.€€Defendant€ran€to€the€bedroom€and€called€for€an€ambulance.€€After€heÏcalled€911,€he€went€back€into€the€kitchen€to€look€for€Oakley€and€she€was€gone.€ÏHe€looked€outside€for€her€and€then€waited€for€the€police€to€arrive.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€could€not€remember€what€he€said€specifically€to€the€policeÏafter€they€got€to€the€scene€or€during€their€questioning€that€night€because€he€ð ðwasÏpretty€drunk.ðð€€He€recalled€being€in€the€police€car€and€going€to€Vanderbilt€Hospital€toÏget€stitches€in€his€finger.€€Defendant€could€not€remember€what€actually€occurred€thatÏnight€until€he€sobered€up€the€next€day,€September€25,€1994,€around€1:00€p.m.Ïwhen€he€again€talked€to€the€police.€ÌÌà àRuby€Bird,€the€Defendantððs€mother,€was€living€with€her€son€at€816€McCarnÏStreet€in€September€1994.€€She€was€away€visiting€a€friend€at€the€time€theÏstabbings€occurred€because€the€Defendant€and€Oakley€were€getting€drunk€earlierÏthat€day.€€Bird€was€afraid€of€Oakley€when€she€drank.€€Six€(6)€weeks€prior€to€theÏstabbing€of€Oakley,€Bird€called€the€police€because€the€Defendant€was€drunk€andÏmade€threats€toward€his€mother.€€During€cross„examination,€Bird€denied€telling€theÏpolice€that€the€Defendant€had€threatened€to€shoot€his€wife.€€However,€she€didÏadmit€that€Defendant€had€threatened€to€ð ðeliminateðð€her€[Bird]€for€running€her€mouth.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€does€not€establish€the€elementsÏof€premeditation€and€deliberation€required€to€support€the€verdict€for€first€degreeÏmurder.€€At€the€time€of€the€offense,€first€degree€murder€was€ð ðan€intentional,Ïpremeditated€and€deliberate€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)(1991€Supp.).€€ð ðPremeditationðð€is€ð ðan€act€done€after€the€exercise€ofÏreflection€and€judgment,ðð€meaning€the€ð ðintent€to€kill€must€have€been€formed€prior€toÏthe€act€itself.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€(d).€€The€purpose€to€kill€need€not€pre„exist€in€the€defendantððsÏmind€for€any€definite€period€of€time.€€òòIdóó.€€In€addition,€the€defendantððs€mental€stateÏmust€be€carefully€considered€to€determine€if€the€defendant€was€ð ðsufficiently€free€fromÏexcitement€and€passion€as€to€be€capable€of€premeditation.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àð ðDeliberationðð€requires€some€period€of€reflection€such€that€the€mind€is€free€fromÏthe€influence€of€excitement€or€passion.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.Ï1992).€€Also,€deliberation€requires€that€the€killing€be€done€with€a€ð ðcool€purpose,ððÏmeaning€the€defendant€is€free€from€the€passions€of€the€moment.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,Ï844€S.W.2d€144€(Tenn.€1992).€€Both€the€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberationÏare€jury€questions€which€may€be€inferred€from€the€circumstances€surrounding€theÏkilling.€€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).€€Repeated€blows€may€serve€as€circumstantial€evidence€ofÍmurder€in€the€first€degree€if€such€blows€are€inflicted€as€the€result€of€premeditationÏand€deliberation,€and€not€in€the€heat€of€passion.€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€542.ÌÌà àThere€was€ample€evidence€in€this€case€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€ofÏpremeditation€and€deliberation.€€Reviewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,Ïthe€evidence€in€this€case€reflected€that€the€Defendant€and€Oakley€had€a€violentÏhistory.€€Robert€Spence€testified€that€the€Defendant€often€threatened€Oakley€andÏthat€she€suffered€a€black€eye€every€month.€€Mia€Ambrose,€Oakleyððs€niece,€testifiedÏthat€in€the€week€prior€to€Oakleyððs€death,€she€had€heard€the€Defendant€threaten€toÏkill€Oakley€and€saw€him€put€a€knife€to€her€throat.€€The€Defendantððs€mother€hadÏalso€filed€a€police€report€in€which€she€advised€the€police€that€the€Defendant€hadÏthreatened€the€life€of€Oakley€and€herself.€€Declarations€by€a€defendant€of€his€intentÏto€kill€Oakley€may€be€indicative€of€both€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€òòBrownóó,€836ÏS.W.2d€at€541„42.€€€The€Defendantððs€constant€threats€and€abusive€conductÏtowards€Oakley€is€a€fact€of€their€prior€relationship€from€which€motive€may€beÏinferred€by€the€jury€to€prove€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905ÏS.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€testified€at€trial€that€he€and€Oakley€were€having€an€argumentÏwhen€she€cut€his€pinky€finger.€€He€got€up,€walked€away€from€the€table€towards€theÏsink,€retrieved€a€knife€from€the€drawer,€walked€back€over€to€the€table€and€thenÍstabbed€Oakley€three€(3)€times.€€Dr.€Miles€testified€that€a€great€deal€of€force€mustÏhave€been€used€to€produce€injuries€of€this€type€upon€a€woman€the€size€of€Oakley.ÏThe€fact€that€the€Defendant€procured€the€knife€he€used€to€inflict€the€stab€woundsÏupon€Oakley€is€a€circumstance€from€which€the€jury€could€have€reasonably€inferredÏpremeditation€and€deliberation.€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€541.€There€is€not€a€specificÏamount€of€time€required€to€form€deliberation.€€òòGentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€at€3„4.€€The€juryÏcould€reasonably€have€inferred€from€the€Defendantððs€actions€that€Defendant€wasÏacting€with€premeditation,€pursuant€to€his€previous€threats,€and€with€deliberation,Ïhaving€sufficient€time€to€contemplate€the€consequences€of€his€actions€while€heÏwalked€over€to€the€drawer€to€retrieve€the€knife€and€having€a€cool€purpose€when€heÏreturned€to€the€table€and€stabbed€Oakley€violently€three€(3)€times.€€AnyÏreconciliation€in€conflicts€between€the€testimony€of€the€Defendant€at€trial€and€hisÏprior€statements€to€the€police€is€a€matter€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€trier€of€fact€andÏnot€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòByrge€v.ÏStateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).ÌÌà àAs€no€one€was€at€home€other€than€the€Defendant,€it€may€be€inferred€that€theÏDefendant€was€the€one€who€washed€the€knives€he€used€to€inflict€the€stabÏwounds.€€Defendantððs€actions€of€washing€the€knives,€while€not€necessarily€proof€ofÏpremeditation€and€deliberation,€discredited€his€theory€of€self„defense€as€set€forth€inÏhis€statements€to€the€police€and€his€testimony€to€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2dÍat€148.€€The€jury€is€entitled€to€reject€the€Defendantððs€theory€in€favor€of€the€StateððsÏproof.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€ÌÌà àDefendant€subsequently€argues€that€he€did€not€have€the€mental€capacity€toÏform€the€required€intent€to€kill€Oakley€due€to€his€intoxication.€€Other€than€theÏtestimony€of€the€Defendant,€the€record€is€devoid€of€any€proof€that€the€DefendantÏwas€intoxicated€to€the€point€to€negate€any€specific€intent.€€While€some€policeÏofficers€testified€that€Defendant€had€obviously€been€drinking,€they€also€stated€thatÏhe€was€coherent€and€capable€of€understanding€his€actions€at€the€scene€of€theÏstabbing.€€The€defense€of€intoxication€negating€specific€intent€is€a€question€of€factÏfor€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Givensóó,€631€S.W.2d€720,€721€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€òòperm.€toÏappeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1982).€€The€juryððs€findings€stand€and€accredit€the€testimony€ofÏthe€arresting€officers€rather€than€that€of€the€Defendant.€€Having€found€that€thereÏwere€sufficient€facts€to€prove€the€elements€of€first€degree€murder,€this€issue€isÏwithout€merit.Ìà àÌà@ àòòiii.€€Admission€of€prior€bad€acts€of€the€defendantóóÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€admission€ofÏprior€threats€by€the€Defendant€against€Oakley.€€Specifically,€the€DefendantÏobjected€to€the€testimony€of€Mia€Ambrose€regarding€the€Defendantððs€threats€to€killÍOakley€if€she€left€him€while€pointing€a€knife€at€her€throat.€€He€also€objected€to€theÏtestimony€of€their€next„door€neighbor,€Robert€Spence,€who€testified€that€DefendantÏrepeatedly€threatened€and€abused€Oakley,€even€as€late€as€the€day€of€theÏstabbing€when€Defendant€told€Oakley€that€he€would€take€her€in€the€house€andÏð ðwhoop€her€ass.ðð€€Defendant€further€objects€to€the€trial€courtððs€assistance€to€theÏState€during€the€hearing€determining€the€admissibility€of€the€testimony€of€Spence.€ÏOver€the€objections€of€defense€counsel,€the€trial€court€ruled€such€testimonyÏadmissible€as€evidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs€or€acts€under€Rule€404(b)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€Even€if€the€testimony€was€admissible€under€RuleÏ404(b),€Defendant€contends€that€the€probative€value€of€such€evidence€isÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.ÌÌà àð ðEvidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€theÏcharacter€of€a€person€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€trait.ðð€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€However,€in€the€exceptional€case€another€crime€mayÏarguably€be€relevant€to€an€issue€other€than€the€accusedððs€character.€€òòIdóó.,€AdvisoryÏCommission€Comments;€òòcitingóó€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1985).€ÏIssues€such€as€identity,€motive€and€common€scheme€or€plan,€intent€or€rebuttal€ofÏaccident€or€mistake€are€such€exceptional€cases.€€òòIdóó.€€Three€(3)€conditions€must€beÏsatisfied€before€allowing€such€evidence:ÌÓÓà8 à1)€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€juryððsÏpresence;ÌÌà8 à2)€The€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issue€exists€other€thanÏconduct€conforming€with€a€character€trait€and€must€upon€request€stateÏon€the€record€the€material€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€forÏadmitting€the€evidence;€andÌÌà8 à3)€The€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probative€value€isÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.ÌÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)(1),€(2)€and€(3).ÌÌÓÓÌà àUpon€objection€by€the€Defendant,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€outside€theÏpresence€of€the€jury€regarding€the€testimony€of€Mia€Ambrose€as€to€prior€threats€theÏDefendant€made€towards€Oakley.€€Following€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€determinedÏthat€such€testimony€was€admissible€on€the€basis€that€ð ðas€[it]€understood€the€rulesÏof€evidence,€this€is€admissible.ðð€€As€the€trial€court€failed€to€determine€and€state€onÏthe€record€the€material€issue€to€which€the€issue€was€relevant€and€failed€to€find€thatÏthe€probative€value€of€the€evidence€was€not€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice,€our€determination€of€the€admissibility€of€the€evidence€will€be€based€uponÏthe€evidence€presented€at€the€jury€out€hearing.€òòState€v.€DuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,Ï653€(Tenn.€1997).ÌÌà àEvidence€must€be€relevant€and€probative€to€some€issue€at€trial€and€mustÏð ðmake€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€theÍaction€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€During€the€jury€out€hearing,€Mia€Ambrose€testified€that€whileÏshe€stayed€in€the€Defendantððs€home,€she€witnessed€incidents€during€which€theÏDefendant€threatened€to€kill€Oakley€because€she€was€planning€to€leave€him.€ÏAlso,€Ambrose€testified€that€Defendant€pointed€a€knife€at€Oakley€and€said€he€wasÏgoing€to€kill€her.€€These€threats€occurred€approximately€one€and€a€half€weeks€priorÏto€the€stabbing.€For€the€jury€to€convict€the€Defendant€of€first€degree€murder,€theÏState€was€required€to€prove€intent,€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€These€threatsÏgo€both€to€the€Defendantððs€intent€and€motive€as€relevant€to€establish€materialÏissues.€€Violent€acts€indicative€of€the€relationship€between€the€victim€of€a€violentÏcrime€and€the€defendant€prior€to€the€commission€of€the€offense€are€relevant€to€showÏintent.€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€574€(Tenn.€1993).€€Furthermore,€while€suchÏevidence€may€have€been€prejudicial,€the€evidence€was€highly€relevant€to€materialÏissues€and€did€not€introduce€any€extraneous€issues€to€the€jury.€€òòDuboseóó,€953ÏS.W.2d€at€655.€€On€the€basis€of€this€record,€the€prejudice€was€not€unfair€and€thisÏcourt€concludes€that€the€probative€value€of€Ambroseððs€testimony€was€notÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.ÌÌà àThe€testimony€of€Robert€Spence€in€which€he€stated€that€DefendantÏthreatened€Oakley€on€the€day€of€the€stabbing€and€repeatedly€abused€andÏthreatened€Oakley€prior€to€that€occasion€was€also€determined€admissible€by€theÍtrial€court€following€a€jury€out€hearing.€€Because€the€trial€court€complied€with€theÏrequirements€of€Rule€404(b),€our€standard€of€review€is€abuse€of€discretion.€ÏòòDuboseóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€652.€€Similar€to€our€reasoning€above,€these€threats€areÏadmissible€to€prove€the€Defendantððs€motive€and€intent€for€proof€of€the€elements€ofÏdeliberation€and€premeditation.€€Furthermore,€the€evidence€was€not€unfairlyÏprejudicial€and€was€probative€of€material€issues.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àDefendant€argues€the€trial€court€improperly€assisted€the€State€in€admitting€theÏtestimony€of€Robert€Spence€which€violated€his€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€Defendant€did€notÏobject€at€trial€during€the€jury€out€hearing.€€Failure€to€make€a€contemporaneousÏobjection€waives€consideration€by€this€court€of€the€issue€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€36(a);€òòTeague€v.€Stateóó,€772€S.W.2d€915,€926€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),Ïòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó.€(Tenn.€1989);€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó;€760€S.W.2d€228,€235Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó.€(Tenn.€1988).€€In€addition,€theÏDefendant€failed€to€include€this€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€Therefore,€this€issueÏhas€been€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Clintonóó,€754€S.W.2d€100,Ï103€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó.€(Tenn.€1988).€€Even€if€the€issueÏwere€not€waived,€we€fail€to€see€from€our€review€of€the€record€that€the€DefendantÏwas€prejudiced€due€to€the€trial€courtððs€questioning€of€a€witness€during€a€jury€outÏhearing.€€Çà@ àòòIv.€€Jury€instructionsóóÌà àÌà àIn€his€second€issue,€Defendant€claims€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€hisÏmotions€(1)€for€an€amended€instruction€on€the€range€of€punishment€and€(2)€to€strikeÏthe€portion€of€the€range€of€punishment€instruction€which€advises€the€jury€of€theÏminimum€length€of€time€the€Defendant€would€serve€prior€to€parole€eligibility.€ÏDefendant€argues€this€potion€of€the€instruction€is€unconstitutional.€€The€followingÏinstruction€was€given€to€the€jury:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€punishment€for€the€offense€is€life€imprisonment,€life€imprisonmentÏwithout€the€possibility€of€parole€or€death€by€electrocution.€€The€State,Ïhowever,€is€not€seeking€the€death€penalty€or€life€imprisonment€withoutÏthe€possibility€of€parole€and,€therefore,€should€you€return€a€verdict€ofÏguilty€the€Court€will€impose€a€life€sentence.€€ÌÌà8 àThe€jury€will€not€attempt€to€fix€any€sentence.€€However,€you€mayÏweigh€and€consider€the€meaning€of€a€sentence€of€imprisonment.ÌÌà8 àYou€are€further€informed€that€the€minimum€number€of€years€a€personÏsentenced€to€imprisonment€must€serve€for€this€offense€before€reachingÏthe€earliest€release€eligibility€date€is€25€years.ÌÌà8 àWhether€a€defendant€is€actually€released€from€incarceration€on€theÏdate€when€first€eligible€for€release€is€a€discretionary€decision€made€byÏthe€Board€of€Paroles€and€is€based€on€many€factors.€€The€Board€ofÏParoles€has€the€authority€to€require€a€defendant€to€serve€the€entireÏsentence€imposed€by€the€Court.ÌÌÓÓÌThe€trial€court€gave€similar€instructions€on€all€lesser€included€offenses,€including€theirÏearliest€release€eligibility€dates.ÌÌà àDefendantððs€trial€counsel€filed€a€motion€to€charge€the€jury€on€the€range€ofÏpunishment€and€a€motion€to€exclude€an€instruction€on€parole€eligibility€as€requiredÏby€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„201.€€The€trial€court€overruled€theÏDefendantððs€motion€regarding€the€exclusion€of€that€information€but€granted€theÏmotion€on€charging€the€jury€on€range€of€punishment.€€While€Defendant€now€claimsÏthis€instruction€was€unconstitutional€and€violated€his€due€process€rights,€we€declineÏto€find€that€the€trial€court€erred.€€The€statute€does€not€violate€the€doctrine€ofÏseparation€of€powers€nor€does€it€deprive€the€Defendant€of€his€right€to€a€fair€trialÏpursuant€to€his€right€of€due€process,€therefore,€the€statute€is€constitutional€under€theÏcircumstances€of€this€case.€€òòState€v.€Howard€E.€Kingóó,€No.€02„S„01„9703„CR„00021,€___€S.W.2d€___€,€slip€op.€at€2,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.,€Jackson,€July€6,Ï1998).€ÌÌà àSimilar€to€the€defendant€in€òòKingóó,€Defendant€relies€upon€òòFarris€v.€Stateóó,€535ÏS.W.2d€608€(Tenn.€1976),€in€arguing€that€this€statute€is€unconstitutionally€vague.€€InÏòòFarrisóó,€the€instruction€given€€ð ðprovided€no€reasonable€guidance€as€to€theÏramifications€of€the€parole€system.ðð€€òòKingóó,€No.€02„S„01„9703„CR„0002,€slip€op.€atÏ10.€€Conversely,€the€statute€in€question€here€does€not€leave€the€jury€to€speculateÏabout€the€benefits€of€the€parole€system,€but€requires€the€Department€of€CorrectionÏto€compute€exact€figures€to€determine€the€application€of€various€factors€relevant€toÍrelease€eligibility.€€òòIdóó.€€Jurors€are€provided€with€ð ðexplicit,€objective,€and€unambiguousÏguidance€sufficient€to€overcome€any€allegation€of€vagueness.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€11.ÌÌà àAlso,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€instruction€violated€his€rights€to€a€fairÏtrial€by€an€impartial€jury€based€upon€a€misleading€and€inaccurate€portion€of€the€juryÏinstructions.€€Similar€to€the€defendant€in€òòKingóó,€the€Defendant€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóóÏcompares€jury€instructions€charged€to€his€jury€on€sentencing€to€those€juryÏinstructions€in€òòState€v.€Cookóó,€816€S.W.2d€322€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€jury€instructionsÏgiven€on€the€range€of€punishment€in€òòCookóó€were€not€proper€as€the€jury€was€onlyÏinstructed€on€Range€I€punishment€when€the€defendant€was€actually€subject€toÏpunishment€as€a€Range€II€offender.€€òòKingóó,€No.€02„S„01„9703„CR„00021,€slip€op.€atÏ13.€€€Defendantððs€jury€instructions€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€informed€the€jury€as€to€theÏshortest€and€longest€possible€sentences€for€each€offense€charged€to€the€jury.€ÏAdditionally,€the€jury€was€instructed€as€to€the€minimum€portion€that€DefendantÏwould€serve€before€becoming€eligible€for€parole.€€The€jury€in€this€case€was€properlyÏinstructed€as€to€the€requirements€of€the€statute.€€òòIdóó.€€Under€the€circumstances€of€thisÏcase€and€the€jury€instructions€given€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„201(b)(2),€the€Defendant€was€not€deprived€of€his€due€process€right€to€a€fair€trial.€ÏòòIdóó.€at€17.ÌÌà àFinally,€the€Defendant€claims€that€the€statute€in€question€is€invalid€basedÏupon€òòFarrisóó€€as€an€exercise€by€the€legislature€in€judicial€authority.€€As€our€supremeÏcourt€has€noted,€ð ð[H]aving€already€acknowledged€the€authority€of€the€legislature€toÏprovide€a€range€of€punishment€instruction,€we€must€also€acknowledge€that€anÏexplanation€of€the€reality€of€early€release€and€parole€is€no€further€an€encroachmentÏinto€the€judicial€function.ðð€€òòKingóó,€No.€02„S„01„9703„CR„00021,€slip€op.€at€8.€€As€theÏjury€must€decide€the€issue€of€guilt€or€innocence€and€the€trial€court€must€determine€theÏultimate€sentence,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„201(b)(2)€does€notÏviolate€the€Separation€of€Powers€Clauses€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€Special€Judge