ÿWPCŸ$ ¯1Uc ¯ÁM+Sm‚Y™“CÀ¥ 2Q”óy_W Ljo]/Ó6h¸}ÔÜñÕ«F1 · °žD Ñï£=–Õ»h¯( ©àØ-†i”š±[®öÊü_\àŽÖ&oó-Àà8Õã]€fÅ)ëmå³6fÎZη=Ê×äkdŸ’_ír2ºÉ·guÄj?ý¡½è>.dþ^ePÔŸØ3[¢@Â|ü™­ùãƒ(OÐè{âÙ|>Ãg  ;ƒ3Zc-Ÿt€ýëVúƒhš•£Ò6¯ì¾y qF43EãÊ¡þ':ˆ¾ýU°-Á»óD)áñUb3ãøÛê%= RV™è£ŽŸ‘×?A;`á/-QùõÆù‡'ÏÎÏE†¦²À½·àUìV©[X I‚€C+ .#û•Ðo0µBÝäã'¡ ªZ»1˜vÈoàµ*.ì1oIÚ ðs{—T4ÁžôÓÂÐ?8«#‚u7wtߧqæçÙü§úå$ŠtDȈx¹Þÿÿ]ðé ‹¼9«7å{Ý;¼f>«Ánò>™àz¢“­ä'wÜè"±†¾#’Æúõ”m‰ýõ#qæËøPxtœƒÔçác€JRWÖ—b %\^ b 0ˆnU%NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ U@‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ# 0 DéN-/‘NEß áU@ë+I|JÔÆÄš.^ŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒb”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””” 0 뜜œœ B‡ ‡ 0¤¤ D3H! D-{! 0K¨!¨! ASó!ÆF" 0¤ # 0D°# A«ô#»¹‹)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularq\;'”Áœ3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒR/Š$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XòsX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ X<#XXXòsÔÔ€ ôÓŸ òX X<#ÔThe€appellant€was€originally€charged€by€indictment€with€premeditated€first€degree€murder. ‡Ý ƒR/Š$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€XòsX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ô‰ òXXòsÔÔ_ÔÔ‡ ôÓŸ ò òô‰ÔEarly€in€the€investigation,€Agent€Davenport€learned€that€Mark€Goins€previously€visited€€the€vacant€apartmentÐ ° Ðwith€ð ðat€least€one€other€manðð€and€had€engaged€in€sexual€activity.€€€ Ý ƒR/Š$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€XòsX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡XòsXXXòsÔÔ#†XòsXXXòs~#ÔÔ‡ X<#XXXòsÔNewport€Police€Officers€Steve€Hudson€and€€Mike€Hazelwood€were€on€patrol€on€March€15,Ð ° Ð1997.€€On€this€date,€both€officers€observed€the€appellant€in€Newport€a€little€after€5:00€p.m.€€He€wasÐ œì Ðobserved€with€Maelon€Woods€in€the€alley€between€Woodlawn€Avenue€and€McMahan€Street.€Ð ˆØ ÐThomas€Webster€also€observed€the€appellant€in€Newport€on€the€date€of€the€murder;€he€observed€theÐ tÄ Ðappellant€walking€toward€the€courthouse€yard€with€the€victim.Ô#†XòsXX X<#À#Ô(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman  Ý ƒR/Š$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€XòsX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ X<#XXXòsÔÔ€ ôÓŸ òX X<#ÔThomas€Rathbone€committed€suicide€prior€to€the€commencement€of€the€appellantððs€trial. ÷Ý ƒR/Š$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€XòsX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ X<#XXXòsÔÔ€ ôÓŸ òX X<#ÔAfter€the€State€rested,€the€defense€moved€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal€as€to€premeditated€murder.€€After€lengthyÐ ° Ðargument€by€counsel€and€careful€consideration€by€the€trial€court,€the€court€granted€the€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittalÐ |Ì Ðas€to€the€charge€of€premeditated€murder.€€ rÝ ƒR/Š$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€XòsX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ô‰ òXXòsÔÔ_ÔÔ‡ ôÓŸ ò òô‰ÔPrior€to€the€commencement€of€trial,€defense€counsel€requested€a€continuance€in€order€to€competently€reviewÐ ° Ðand€investigate€this€material.€€This€motion€was€denied. ÊÝ ƒR/Š$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€XòsX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ô‰ òXXòsÔÔ_ÔÔ‡ ôÓŸ ò òô‰ÔOur€current€criminal€code€treats€"self-defense"€as€justification€for€conduct€that€otherwise€would€constitute€anÐ ° Ðoffense.€€Thus,€the€actor's€conduct€is€"justified"€or€thought€to€be€right.€€òòSeeóó€MODEL€PENAL€CODE€€ðð€3.01.Ð |Ì ÐÌÌÌ ºÝ ƒR/Š$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€XòsX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ X<#XXXòsÔÔ€ ôÓŸ òX X<#ÔThe€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€as€a€range€I€standard€offender.€€We€note€that€the€court€set€the€appellant'sÐ ° Ðrelease€eligibility€date€at€100%€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-501(i)(1)€and€(2)€(1997).Ð |Ì Ð $Ý ƒR/Š$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€XòsX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ X<#XXXòsÔÔ€ ôÓŸ òX X<#ÔIt€is€unclear€from€the€trial€courtððs€findings€as€to€which€mitigating€factor€is€supported€by€€his€statement€that€theÐ ° Ðappellant€suffers€from€ð ða€mental€problem.ðð€€Notwithstanding,€we€believe€that€this€finding€is€supported€by€the€record€andÐ |Ì Ðrequires€mitigation€consideration€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(8). - ù-(|G2/Š$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ád»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XòsX»»Ô d(|3ù$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ád»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ù$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ád»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ád»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼ád»»»Ôà@HHìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ È Ðà@††"ìàJune€2000€Sessionà@@ìì*ìàˆÐ à0 ÐÔ‡XòsX»¼ádÔÌò òÔ#†¼ád»XXòs~#ÔÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€òòóóv.€JOHN€PHILIP€Ô_ÔNOLANDÔ_ÔòòóóÔ‡XòsX»¼ádÔó óÐ è8 ÐÓÄÓÌà@œ œ ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔCockeÔ_Ô€CountyˆÐ ð @ Ðà@r r ìàNo.€7088,€Rex€Henry€Ogle,€Trial€JudgeˆÐ à 0 ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<¯` A߈Ð °  ÐÌà@ð ð ìàNo.€E2000„00323„CCA„R3„„CD€„€Decided€ˆÐ ¯ÿ  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô_ÔAugustÔ_Ô€3,€2000Ð Ÿï  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<Ž` AßÐ ß  Ðó óÌÔ‡ X<#XXXòsÔThis€is€an€appeal€by€John€Philip€Ô_ÔNolandÔ_Ô€of€his€Ô_ÔCockeÔ_Ô€County€conviction€for€the€second€degreeÐ ŽÞ  Ðmurder€of€Mark€Ô_ÔGoinsÔ_Ô.€€The€appellant€is€currently€serving€a€twenty„three€year€sentence€for€thisÐ zÊ Ðoffense.€€He€raises€as€error€(1)€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€motion€to€suppressòòóó;€(2)€the€StateððsÐ f¶ Ðviolation€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó;€(3)€the€insufficiency€of€the€evidence;€(4)€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€toÐ R¢ Ðinstruct€the€jury€as€to€the€defenses€of€self„defense€and€necessity;€(5)€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€toÐ >Ž Ðinstruct€the€jury€as€to€the€lesser€included€offense€of€criminally€negligent€homicide;€and€(6)€the€lengthÐ *z Ðof€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€After€review€of€the€record€and€the€applicable€law,€weÐ f Ðaffirm€the€judgment€of€conviction.€€The€sentence€is€modified€to€reflect€a€term€of€eighteen€years.Ð R ÐÔ#†XòsXX X<#Ð#ÔÔ#†¼ád»XXòs$#ÔÔ‡XòsX»¼ádÔÌÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€affirmed;€sentence€modified.ó óÐ Î ÐÌòòDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.Ô#†¼ád»àXòsj #ÔÔ‡XòsX.¼ádÔóó€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.€óó€and€Ð ®þ Ðòò€John€Everett€Williams,€J.€óójoined.Ð žî ÐÌSusanna€Thomas,€Asst.€Public€Defender,€Newport,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€John€Philip€Ô_ÔNolandÔ_Ô.Ð ~ Î ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General,€Mark€A.Ð ^"®! ÐÔ_ÔFulksÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€Al€C.€Ô_ÔSchmutzerÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General,€and€James€B.Ð N#ž" ÐDunn,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð >$Ž# ÐÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ád»XXòs0 #ÔÔ‡XòsX»¼ádԈР&n!% ÐòòóóÔ#†¼ád»XXòsœ #ÔÔ‡XòsX»¼ádÔÌÌÔ#†¼ád»XXòsú #ÔÔ€XòsX»¼ádÔÔ‡ X<#XXXòsÔà  àThe€appellant,€John€Philip€Ô_ÔNolandÔ_Ô,€was€found€guilty€by€a€Ô_ÔCockeÔ_Ô€County€jury€of€the€secondÐ î(>$( Ðdegree€murder€of€Mark€Ô_ÔGoinsÔ_Ô€and€was€sentenced€to€twenty„three€years€in€the€Department€ofÐ Ú)*%) ÐCorrection.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€appellant€raises€the€following€issues:Ð Æ*&*ý ÐÔ_Ôà8  àI.€€The€trial€court€erred€by€denying€the€appellantððs€motion€to€suppress€his€statementÐ ° Ðmade€to€law€enforcement€officials;à À àà  àà p àà È àÐœìÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àII.€€€The€State€failed€to€timely€provide€defense€counsel€with€all€exculpatory€evidenceÐ tÄ Ðpursuant€to€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó;Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àIII.€The€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€€a€conviction€for€second€degree€murder;€Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àIV.€€The€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€the€defenses€ofÐ  ` Ðnecessity€and€self„defense.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àV.€€The€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€the€lesser€includedÐ Ô$  Ðoffense€of€criminally€negligent€homicide;€andÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àVI.€€The€trial€court€improperly€applied€enhancement€factors€and€failed€to€applyÐ ˜è  Ðmitigating€factors€resulting€in€an€excessive€sentence.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓÌÓÓà  àAfter€a€review€of€the€record€and€the€applicable€law,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court,Ð 4„ Ðbut,€for€reasons€discussed€herein,€the€appellant's€sentence€is€modified€to€reflect€a€term€of€eighteenÐ  p Ðyears€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€entry€of€judgmentÐ  \ Ðconsistent€with€this€opinion.Ð øH ÐÌÌÌà@ÛÛ%ìàò òBackgroundó óˆÐ ¨ø Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌà  àAt€approximately€5:00€p.m.,€on€March€15,€1997,€Sue€Suggs,€an€employee€at€OverholtððsÐ €Ð ÐHardware€in€Newport,€observed€Mark€Goins€climbing€the€stairs€to€an€abandoned€apartment€acrossÐ l¼ Ðthe€street€from€the€hardware€store.€€She€had€observed€Goins€go€to€the€apartment€on€previousÐ X ¨ Ðoccasions.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€this€occasion,€Goins€was€accompanied€by€a€ð ðperson€with€long€hair.ðð€€Ms.€SuggsÐ D!” Ðremarked€to€Fred€Lee€and€Hubert€Willis€ð ðThere€goes€Mark€with€a€girl.ðð€€Fred€Lee€replied,€ð ðthatððs€noÐ 0"€  Ðgirl,€thatððs€a€man.ðð€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àUpon€arriving€home€at€10:00€p.m.€that€evening,€Lisa€Reed,€Mark€Goinsðð€sister€and€legalÐ ô$D # Ðguardian,€became€worried€when€she€discovered€that€her€brother€was€not€at€home.€€They€€beganÐ à%0!$ Ðlooking€for€Mark,€and,€when€they€could€not€locate€him,€notified€law€enforcement€officers.€€€€MarkÐ Ì&"% ÐGoins€was€twenty„seven€years€old€and€was€mentally€impaired.€€Ms.€Reed€testified€that,€although€heÐ ¸'#& Ðcould€not€maintain€regular€employment,€he€did€perform€odd€jobs€and€ran€errands€for€severalÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbusinesses€in€Newport.€€His€last€chore€included€emptying€the€trash€at€Long€John€Silverððs€restaurantÐ ° Ðand€he€would€return€home€around€6:30€p.m.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àOn€Sunday,€March€16,€Newport€Police€Sergeant€Ronnie€Dyke€€discovered€the€body€of€MarkÐ tÄ ÐGoins€at€the€abandoned€apartment€across€the€street€from€Overholtððs€Hardware.€€TBI€Agent€KellyÐ `° ÐSmith,€a€member€of€the€Violent€Crime€Response€Team,€was€called€to€the€crime€scene€to€assist€in€theÐ L œ Ðinvestigation.€€Agent€Smith€described,€ð ðupon€entering€through€the€door€.€.€.€behind€the€door€.€.€.€thereÐ 8 ˆ Ðwas€located€the€body€of€the€deceased€victim.ðð€€ð ð€.€.€.€[T]here€was€some€broken€glass€and€a€brokenÐ $ t Ðpicture€frame€located€on€the€floor.ðð€€There€was€blood€on€the€wall€located€near€the€front€door.€€€TheÐ  ` Ðvictim€was€on€his€side€turned€face€down€and€he€had€some€cloth€between€his€hands.€€€In€the€bedroom,Ð ü L  Ðthey€discovered€a€bed;€blood€was€located€on€the€bed€and€on€the€walls€in€a€number€of€places.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àDr.€Cleland€Blake€performed€the€autopsy€on€the€victim.€€He€discovered€three€stab€woundsÐ À  Ðto€the€left€side€of€the€neck.€€The€largest€of€the€wounds€Ð ¬ü  Ðà8  àwent€very€slightly€upward€but€generally€straight€into€the€neck,€severed€the€left€carotidÐ ˜è  Ðartery,€the€main€artery€going€up€the€neck€and€went€across€the€lower€end€of€the€voiceÐ „Ô  Ðbox€at€the€top€of€the€trachea€or€the€breathing€tube.€€.€.€.In€other€words€massiveÐ pÀ Ðhemorrhage€into€the€lungs.€€Thatððs€the€lethal€wound€that€caused€him€to€bleed€out€andÐ \¬ Ðdrown€in€his€own€blood.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€other€two€wounds€were€not€fatal.€€Dr.€Blake€opined€that€the€victim€would€have€survived€threeÐ  p Ðto€seven€minutes€from€infliction€of€the€fatal€wound€until€he€died.€€The€victimððs€body€also€evidencedÐ  \ Ðsome€abrasions€and€contusions€which€would€have€occurred€prior€to€death€and€were€consistent€withÐ øH Ðbeating€with€a€fist.€€Dr.€Blake€testified€as€to€the€presence€of€sexual€activity€at€the€time€of€death:Ð ä4 Ðà8  à.€.€.€Some€sexual€activity€had€been€going€on€with€[the€victimððs€penis.]€€I€canððt€tell€youÐ Ð  Ðwhether€itððs€hand,€mouth€or€whatever€but€there€was€mucus€draining€from€the€end€ofÐ ¼  Ðthe€penis€and€it€was€swollen€and€the€end€of€the€penis€was€wrinkled€so€it€had€beenÐ ¨ø Ðstrutted.€€It€had€been€fully€distended€and€then€had€relaxed€and€the€skin€was€wrinkledÐ ”ä Ðover€the€end€of€the€penis.€€So€some€sexual€activity€had€been,€he€had€been€involvedÐ €Ð Ðin€some€sexual€activity.€€à h àÐl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌDr.€Blake€was€unable€to€determine€a€time€of€death.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àTBI€Agent€David€Davenport€assisted€local€authorities€in€the€investigation€of€Mark€GoinsÐ #l! Ðhomicide.€Through€his€investigation,€the€appellant€was€developed€as€a€possible€suspect.€€WhenÐ $X" ÐAgent€Davenport€first€talked€with€the€appellant,€ð ðhe€told€me€that€he€was€at€the€Brown€House€all€day,Ð ô$D # Ðall€evening€on€Saturday.€€He€was€not€in€Newport,€that€he€lived€with€June€Montgomery€and€that€hisÐ à%0!$ Ðtruck€was€torn€up€and€he€couldnððt€come€to€Newport.ðð€€Agent€Davenport€learned€later€that€theÐ Ì&"% Ðappellant€had€been€in€Newport€on€the€day€of€the€murder€and€re„interviewed€the€appellant€five€daysÐ ¸'#& Ðâ âlater,€on€March€22.€€On€this€date,€Agent€Davenport€informed€the€appellant€that€Maelon€Woods€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðother€witnesses€had€provided€information€that€the€appellant€had€been€in€Newport€on€March€15.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ ° Ðâ âappellant€conceded€that€Ð œì Ðà8  àhe€was€in€Newport€last€Saturday;€it€was€early,€he€went€to€Freddieððs€Bar€looking€forÐ ˆØ ÐMaelon€Woods;€he€drank€a€beer.€.€.€and€that€he€remembered€running€into€Mark€GoinsÐ tÄ Ðat€Freddieððs€and€bumping€into€him;€that€he€had€never€talked€to€him.€.€.€My€truck€toreÐ `° Ðup€and€I€parked€it€in€front€of€the€courthouse.€€I€lied€to€you€the€last€time€I€talked€to€youÐ L œ Ðbecause€I€thought€I€was€violating€my€probation€for€getting€convicted€for€DWI€the€dayÐ 8 ˆ Ðbefore€in€Court€in€Cocke€County.Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌThe€appellant€maintained€that€he€did€not€know€anything€about€the€murder€of€Mark€Goins.€€€€AgentÐ ü L  ÐDavenport€then€began€presenting€the€appellant€with€hypothetical€scenarios,€òòi.e.óó,€what€if€theÐ è 8  Ðappellantððs€hair,€blood€or€fingerprints€were€found€at€the€crime€scene.€€At€this€point,€the€appellantÐ Ô$  Ðhung€his€head€and€said€ð ðyes,€heððd€been€in€there€and€that€he€had€stabbed€the€Goins€boy.ððÐ À  ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€then€provided€the€following€statement,€which€was€reduced€to€writing€by€AgentÐ ˜è  ÐDavenport:Ð „Ô  Ðà8  àLast€Saturday,€March€the€15òòthóó,€1997,€I€came€to€Newport€driving€my€truck.€€I€got€hereÐ pÀ Ðkind€of€early.€€My€truck€broke€down€and€I€had€to€leave€it€in€front€of€the€Courthouse.€Ð \¬ ÐI€walked€downtown€to€Freddieððs€Bar€looking€for€Maelon€Woods.€€I€drank€some€beerÐ H˜ Ðat€Freddieððs€Bar.€.€.€.€€When€I€got€ready€to€leave€I€ran€into€Mark€Goins€and€we€spoke.€Ð 4„ ÐI€had€seen€him€around€town€before€but€didnððt€really€know€him.€€I€looked€for€MaelonÐ  p Ðsome€more.€€I€run€into€Mark€again.€€I€said,€hey,€man,€can€you€help€me€push€my€truckÐ  \ Ðoff.€€He€mumbled€something€and€we€started€walking€toward€the€Courthouse.€€MarkÐ øH Ðsaid€he€had€to€go€up€to€the€apartment.€€He€was€carrying€something€in€his€hands,Ð ä4 Ðlooked€like€a€sack€or€something.€€I€followed€him€upstairs€to€an€apartment.€€We€wentÐ Ð  Ðinto€a€room€and€I€sat€down€on€a€mattress€in€there.€It€was€still€daylight.€I€thought€theÐ ¼  Ðboy€was€going€to€change€clothes€or€something.€€I€guess€I€laid€down€and€passed€out.€Ð ¨ø ÐWhen€I€came€to€the€boy€had€my€britches€down€and€unzipped.€€He€was€sucking€myÐ ”ä Ðdick.€€I€had€a€Case€Sodbuster€knife€in€my€right€front€pocket.€.€.€.€€I€just€lost€it€whenÐ €Ð ÐI€woke€up€and€found€Mark€sucking€my€dick.€€I€took€the€knife€out€and€started€stabbingÐ l¼ Ðhim.€€I€donððt€know€how€many€times€I€stabbed€him.€€The€boy€was€naked€when€I€wokeÐ X ¨ Ðup€and€he€was€on€top€of€me€sucking€my€dick.€€When€I€stabbed€him€he€jerked.€€HeÐ D!” Ðtried€to€hold€on€to€me€and€I€stabbed€him€again.€€I€got€my€britches€on€and€got€the€hellÐ 0"€  Ðout€of€there.€€I€went€back€downtown,€found€Maelon€and€he€came€up€and€helped€meÐ #l! Ðstart€my€truck.€€We€had€to€push€it€off.€€I€went€back€to€the€Brown€House.€€I€gave€theÐ $X" Ðknife€I€used€to€ð ðWhopperðð€that€lives€on€Fines€Creek€in€North€Carolina.€€This€was€theÐ ô$D # Ðother€night.€€The€clothes€I€had€on€I€threw€in€the€French€Broad€River€sometimeÐ à%0!$ ÐSunday€at€J.P.ððs€Campground.€€I€threw€the€work€boots€I€had€on€in€the€dumpsterÐ ° Ðacross€from€Miss€Murrððs€store.€I€didnððt€mean€to€kill€this€boy.€€I€just€donððt€like€gayÐ œì Ðpeople.€€I€didnððt€find€out€he€was€dead€until€Sunday€€morning.€€I€didnððt€mean€to€killÐ ˆØ Ðhim.€€I€just€wanted€him€to€get€the€hell€away€from€me.€.€.€.€ÓÓÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÓÓð ðWhopperðð€was€determined€to€be€Thomas€Rathbone.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€was€located€and€the€knife€was€handed€overÐ L œ Ðto€law€enforcement€officers€and€sent€to€the€Crime€Laboratory.€€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àÌà  àSpecial€Agent€Forensic€Scientist€Emily€Samera€Zavaro€examined€the€knife€for€the€presenceÐ  ` Ðof€blood.€€Although€human€blood€was€present,€there€was€an€insufficient€amount€of€the€substanceÐ ü L  Ðfrom€which€to€obtain€a€DNA€profile€type.Ð è 8  Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌà  àBased€upon€this€proof,€the€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€second€degree€murder.׃\×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð À  ÐÌà  àÌà@88ìàò òI.€€Motion€to€Suppressó óˆÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àA€hearing€on€the€appellantððs€motion€to€suppress€statements€made€to€law€enforcement€officersÐ \¬ Ðwas€heard€by€the€trial€court€on€December€7,€1998.€€TBI€Special€Agent€David€Davenport€testified€thatÐ H˜ Ðhe€interviewed€the€appellant€on€March€17,€1998.€€At€this€time,€the€appellant€was€not€under€arrest,Ð 4„ Ðhad€not€been€charged€with€any€offense,€and€had€arrived€at€the€station€voluntarily.€€€During€this€firstÐ  p Ðinterview,€the€appellant€denied€having€been€in€Newport€on€the€date€of€the€murder.€€The€appellantÐ  \ Ðthen€left€the€station.€€Agent€Davenport€again€talked€with€the€appellant€on€March€22.€€The€appellantÐ øH Ðwas€in€the€Cocke€County€jail€at€this€time€on€an€unrelated€charge.€On€this€occasion,€Agent€DavenportÐ ä4 Ðadvised€the€appellant€of€his€constitutional€rights€and€the€appellant€signed€a€waiver€of€rights€form.€Ð Ð  ЀDuring€this€statement,€the€appellant€admitted€to€being€in€Newport€on€the€date€of€the€murder€and€toÐ ¼  Ðseeing€the€victim€on€that€date.€€He€explained€that€he€had€lied€about€being€in€Newport€previouslyÐ ¨ø Ðbecause€he€was€concerned€that€his€probation€might€be€violated.€€€€Twenty€minutes€later,€the€appellantÐ ”ä Ðprovided€a€third€statement,€confessing€to€the€murder€of€Mark€Goins.€€Agent€Davenport€testified€thatÐ €Ð Ðat€no€time€on€March€22òòndóó€did€the€appellant€invoke€his€right€to€an€attorney.€€The€appellant€never€askedÐ l¼ Ðfor€an€attorney,€he€never€indicated€that€he€could€not€read€or€write,€or€that€he€could€not€read€theÐ X ¨ Ðwritten€statement.€€Agent€Davenport€went€over€the€statement€ð ðverbatim€with€the€appellant,€eachÐ D!” Ðword,€and€gave€him€the€opportunity€to€read€it€as€we€read€it.€€He€said€he€understood€it.€€He€signed€itÐ 0"€  Ðon€each€page,€initialed€all€corrections.ðð€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€testified€that,€on€March€21,€1997,€he€was€in€the€Cocke€County€jail€finishingÐ ô$D # Ða€forty„eight€hour€sentence€on€a€DUI€conviction.€€While€serving€this€sentence,€Agent€Davenport€andÐ à%0!$ Ðtwo€other€officers€removed€the€appellant€from€the€jail€and€took€him€to€a€room€in€the€police€station.€Ð ° ÐAgent€Davenport€began€questioning€the€appellant€about€being€in€Newport€and€killing€Mark€Goins.€Ð œì ÐHe€stated€that€Agent€Davenport€threatened€him€with€the€electric€chair.€€The€appellant€denied€thatÐ ˆØ ÐAgent€Davenport€ever€advised€him€of€his€rights,€including€his€rights€to€cease€questioning€and€haveÐ tÄ Ða€lawyer€present.€The€appellant€stated€that€he€told€the€officers€that€ð ðif€I€need€one€[an€attorney]€I€wantÐ `° Ðone€but€I€canððt€afford€one.ðð€€After€they€questioned€him,€he€asserts€that€they€showed€him€a€paper€and€Ð L œ Ðtold€him€to€sign€it.€€He€stated€that€Agent€Davenport€instructed€the€appellant€that€this€was€hisÐ 8 ˆ Ðstatement€and€that€if€he€signed€it€he€could€go€home€after€forty„eight€hours.€€The€appellant€testifiedÐ $ t Ðthat,€although€he€did€sign€and€initial€it,€he€could€not€read€the€statement.€€The€appellant€explained€thatÐ  ` Ðthe€contents€of€the€statement€transcribed€by€Agent€Davenport€were€misleading€and€not€an€accurateÐ ü L  Ðreflection€of€the€interview€session.€€In€maintaining€that€he€could€not€read€and€write,€the€appellantÐ è 8  Ðexplained€that€he€was€carrying€a€book€ð ðto€look€at€the€pictures€in€it.ðð€€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àÌà  àThe€appellantððs€girlfriend,€June€Montgomery,€testified€that€the€appellant€could€not€read.€€SheÐ ¬ü  Ðexplained€that€the€book€that€the€appellant€carried€with€him€was€ð ðmore€like€a€security€blanket.ðð€€SheÐ ˜è  Ðstated€that€the€book€contained€pictures€of€Native€Americans,€a€subject€of€interest€to€the€appellant.€Ð „Ô  ÐLikewise,€the€appellantððs€sister,€Christine€OððDell,€confirmed€that€the€appellant€cannot€read€and€write.€Ð pÀ ÐShe€stated€that€the€appellant€was€unable€to€attend€public€school€and€was€sent€to€a€special€school.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àBased€upon€this€evidence,€the€trial€court€made€the€following€findings€of€fact€and€conclusionsÐ 4„ Ðof€law:Ð  p Ðà8  à.€.€.€Mr.€Noland€does€have€some€difficulties€in€communicating.€€It€is€obvious€that€heÐ  \ Ðis€not€an€extremely€well€educated€gentleman€and€certainly€that€is€no€reflection€uponÐ øH Ðhim.Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àBut€the€Court€has€to€look€first€of€all€at€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€under€whichÐ ¼  Ðthese€statements€were€given.€€.€.€.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àBased€upon€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€in€this€case€and€comparing€the€testimonyÐ €Ð Ðobviously€there€is€divergence€in€testimony.€€But€the€Court€finds€that€OfficerÐ l¼ ÐDavenport€at€the€time€the€statements€were€given€did€advise€the€defendant€of€hisÐ X ¨ ÐConstitutional€rights€and€took€these€statements€from€him.€€In€order€to€accept€theÐ D!” Ðdefendantððs€version€of€the€statement€.€.€.€I€would€have€to€find€the€statement€wasÐ 0"€  Ðentirely€made€up€by€Officer€Davenport.€€And€I€find€that€at€this€juncture€at€least€to€beÐ #l! Ðincredible€that€Officer€Davenport€simply€made€all€this€up.Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àAnd€so€the€Court€finds€that€the€defendant€voluntarily€waived€his€right€to€counsel€afterÐ à%0!$ Ðbeing€fully€advised€of€his€rights€and€that€he€voluntarily€made€this€statement€and€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðhe€voluntarily€signed€that€statement€after€having€been€read€his€Constitutional€rights.и'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àNow€obviously€each€person€has€different€mental€abilities.€€That€is€clear.€€But€I€donððtÐ )à$( Ðthink€that€the€officers€have€an€obligation€to€conduct€or€to€have€conducted€aÐ |*Ì%) Ðpsychiatric€examination€prior€to€taking€someoneððs€statement.€€Thatððs€not€the€purposeÐ h+¸&* Ðof€the€Fifth€Amendment.€€Now€certainly€someone€with€mental€disabilities€it€mightÐ ° Ðaffect€what€they€understood€about€it,€but€again€itððs€the€duty€of€the€officers€to€adviseÐ œì Ðthose€people,€each€individual€defendant€before€they€ask€them€questions€and€beforeÐ ˆØ Ðthey€take€a€statement.€€And€the€Court€is€satisfied€that€Officer€Davenport€did€exactlyÐ tÄ Ðas€he€testified.Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àAnd€therefore€the€Motion€to€Suppress€the€statements€is€respectfully€overruled.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àÌà  àThe€appellant€contests€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court€asserting€that€he€could€not€have€knowinglyÐ ü L  Ðand€intelligently€waived€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€because€of€his€impaired€mental€ability.€€€Furthermore,Ð è 8  Ðthe€appellant€argues€that,€regardless€of€its€admissibility,€the€statement€procured€by€Agent€DavenportÐ Ô$  Ðis€unreliable€(1)€due€to€Agent€Davenportððs€ð ðmisleading€statementsðð€of€the€evidence€resulting€in€aÐ À  Ðconfession€obtained€by€deception€and€(2)€because€the€statement€was€transcribed€in€a€careless€andÐ ¬ü  Ðincomplete€manner.à ¸ àà  àà h àÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àPrior€to€custodial€questioning,€law€enforcement€officials€must€warn€a€suspect€of€his€right€toÐ pÀ Ðremain€silent,€his€right€to€assistance€of€counsel€during€interrogation,€and€the€consequences€ofÐ \¬ Ðwaiving€those€rights.€€òòSeeóó€€òòArizona€v.€Mirandaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€467„73,€86€S.Ct.€1602,€1624„27Ð H˜ Ð(1966).€€To€establish€a€valid€waiver€of€these€òòMirandaóó€rights,€the€State€must€prove€by€a€preponderanceÐ 4„ Ðof€the€evidence€that€a€òòMirandaóó€warning€was€given€and€that€the€defendant€understood€his€rights.€€òòStateÐ  p Ðv.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€500€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€denied,€óó522€U.S.€953,€118€S.Ct.€376€(1997).€€òòòòóóóóTo€beÐ  \ Ðconstitutional,€a€waiver€must€be€made€with€a€ð ðrequisite€level€of€comprehension,ðð€such€that€anÐ øH Ðindividual€has€ð ða€full€awareness€of€both€the€nature€of€the€right€being€abandoned€and€theÐ ä4 Ðconsequences€of€the€decision€to€abandon€it.ðð€€òòMoran€v.€Burbineóó,€475€U.S.€412,€421,€106€S.Ct.€1135,Ð Ð  Ð1141€(1986);€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544„45€(Tenn.€1994)€(citing€òòFare€v.€Michael€C.óó,Ð ¼  Ð442€U.S.€707,€99€S.Ct.€2560€(1979);€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Butleróó,€441€U.S.€369,€374„75,€99€S.Ct.€1755Ð ¨ø Ð(1979)).€€€€In€determining€whether€a€defendant€understood€his€rights,€a€court€must€consider€theÐ ”ä Ðtotality€of€the€circumstances,€including€the€defendantððs€experience,€education,€background,Ð €Ð Ðintelligence€or€capacity€to€understand€the€warnings€and€the€meaning€of€a€waiver.€€€òòSee€generallyóó€€Ð l¼ ÐòòBushóó,€942€S.W.2d€€at€500.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€reviewing€the€denial€of€a€motion€to€suppress,€this€court€looks€to€the€facts€adduced€at€theÐ 0"€  Ðsuppression€hearing€which€are€most€favorable€to€the€State€as€the€prevailing€party.€€òòState€v.€Danielóó,Ð #l! Ð12€S.W.3d€420,€423€(Tenn.€2000)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996)).€€€InÐ $X" Ðconsidering€the€evidence€presented€at€the€hearing,€this€court€extends€great€deference€to€theÐ ô$D # Ðfact-finding€of€the€suppression€hearing€judge€with€respect€to€weighing€credibility,€determining€facts,Ð à%0!$ Ðand€resolving€conflicts€in€the€evidence.€òòDanielóó,€12€S.W.3d€at€423.€€Indeed,€these€findings€will€beÐ Ì&"% Ðupheld€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòId.óó€€Although€deference€is€given€to€the€trialÐ ¸'#& Ðcourt's€findings€of€fact,€this€court€conducts€its€own€appraisal€of€the€constitutional€questions€presentedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðby€reviewing€the€law€and€applying€it€to€the€specific€facts€of€the€particular€case.€€òòId.óó€€(citing€€òòState€v.Ð )à$( ÐYearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€629€(Tenn.1997);€òòBeare€v.€Tennessee€Dept.€of€Revenueóó,€858€S.W.2d€906,Ð |*Ì%) Ð907€(Tenn.€1993)).Ð h+¸&* Їà  àFrom€our€review€of€the€record,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÐ ° Ðthe€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€appellantððs€waiver€was€voluntary.€€Agent€Davenport€testifiedÐ œì Ðthat€the€appellant€appeared€to€understand€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€and€the€waiver;€the€appellant€testifiedÐ ˆØ Ðto€the€contrary.€€The€trial€court€resolved€the€credibility€issue€against€the€appellant.€Moreover,€despiteÐ tÄ Ðtestimony€of€the€appellantððs€illiteracy,€mental€disability,€and€educational€background;€these€factorsÐ `° Ðdo€not,€in€and€of€themselves,€render€the€appellantððs€statement€involuntary.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Perryóó,€13Ð L œ ÐS.W.3d€724,€738€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1999)€(citing€òòState€v.€Bellóó,€690Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€879,€882€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985);€òòóó€òòState€v.€Greeróó,€749€S.W.2d€484,€485€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð $ t Ð1988);€òòState€v.€Kelleyóó,€683€S.W.2d€1,€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€Rather,€they€constitute€factors€forÐ  ` Ðthe€trial€court€to€consider€in€evaluating€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€€In€the€present€case,€theÐ ü L  Ðappellant€never€indicated€that€he€could€not€read€or€write,€Agent€Davenport€reviewed€the€transcribedÐ è 8  Ðstatement€with€the€appellant,€the€appellant€was€given€the€opportunity€to€review€the€statement€andÐ Ô$  Ðmake€any€corrections,€and€he€signed€the€statement.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€explained€the€fallacyÐ À  Ðof€his€initial€statement€by€stating€his€concern€with€violating€conditions€of€his€probation.€€TheÐ ¬ü  Ðappellantððs€actions€indicate€that€he€understood€that€he€was€involved€in€an€adversarial€process€andÐ ˜è  Ðthat€if€he€had€something€to€hide,€he€could€protect€himself€by€not€speaking.€€Although€the€record€doesÐ „Ô  Ðnot€show€the€full€extent€of€the€appellantððs€cognitive€abilities,€it€does€show€that€the€appellant€had€theÐ pÀ Ðkind€of€concrete€understanding€of€his€rights€necessary€for€an€intelligent€and€voluntary€waiver.€€TheÐ \¬ Ðtrial€court€made€a€common€sense€ruling€based€on€a€preponderance€of€credible€evidence€that€theÐ H˜ Ðappellant€knowingly€and€intelligently€waived€his€rights€to€remain€silent€and€to€the€assistance€ofÐ 4„ Ðcounsel.€€The€law€does€not€require€more.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€also€asserts€that€his€statements€should€not€have€been€admitted€because€theyÐ øH Ðwere€obtained€by€deceptive€interrogation€tactics.€€Specifically,€he€contends€that€Agent€DavenportÐ ä4 Ðinduced€him€into€making€inculpatory€statements€by€misleading€him€regarding€the€evidence€againstÐ Ð  Ðhim.€€Agent€Davenport€testified€that,€during€the€interrogation,€he€informed€the€appellant€thatÐ ¼  Ðð ðMaelon€Woods€had€positively€identified€him€as€being€in€town€on€Saturday.ðð€€He€then€continued€toÐ ¨ø Ðð ðla[y]€out€some€scenarios€of€what€ifs,€what€if€you€had€been€seen€going€upstairs,€.€.€.€what€if€yourÐ ”ä Ðfingerprints€appear€in€that€room€.€.€.,ðð€€ð ð[w]hat€if€we€find€your€semen€in€that€apartment,€what€if€weÐ €Ð Ðfind€your€hair€in€that€apartment.ðð€€Agent€Davenport€finally€informed€the€appellant€that€he€did€notÐ l¼ Ðbelieve€him.€€At€this€point,€the€appellant€hung€his€head€down€and€confessed.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  à€In€addition€to€being€knowing,€the€ð ðrelinquishment€of€the€right€must€be€voluntary€in€the€senseÐ 0"€  Ðthat€it€is€the€product€of€a€free€and€deliberate€choice€rather€than€the€product€of€intimidation,€coercion,Ð #l! Ðor€deception.ðð€€òòStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€544„45;€òòPerryóó,€13€S.W.3d€at€738.€€Agent€DavenportððsÐ $X" Ðhypothetical€statements€did€not€amount€to€deceptive,€coercive,€or€intimidating€tactics€and€did€notÐ ô$D # Ðinduce€the€appellant€to€relinquish€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€First,€the€appellant€voluntarily€waived€hisÐ à%0!$ ÐòòMirandaóó€rights€prior€to€being€presented€with€the€factual€scenarios€presented€by€Agent€Davenport.€Ð Ì&"% ÐThus,€the€statements€had€no€effect€on€the€appellantððs€waiver.€€Moreover,€the€hypotheticals€wereÐ ¸'#& Ðbased€upon€physical€evidence€found€at€the€crime€scene€and€were€not€merely€ð ðin€the€imagination€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€interrogator.ðð€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Howardóó,€617€S.W.2d€656,€659€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€This€issueÐ )à$( Ðis€without€merit.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àFinally,€the€appellant€asserts€that€the€statement€is€incomplete€in€that€it€was€ð ðnot€fullyÐ ° Ðmemorialized€at€the€time€it€was€takenðð€and€ð ðbecause€its€unreliability€is€obvious€on€its€face.ðð€€Again,Ð œì Ðthe€appellant€orally€provided€a€statement€to€Agent€Davenport.€€Davenport€reduced€the€statement€toÐ ˆØ Ðwriting,€read€ð ðverbatimðð€the€statement€to€the€appellant€and€provided€the€appellant€the€opportunityÐ tÄ Ðto€review€and€make€corrections€to€the€statement.€€The€appellant€signed€the€first€and€second€pages€ofÐ `° Ðthe€statement,€initialed€the€beginning€and€ending€of€the€writing€on€each€page,€initialed€the€correctionsÐ L œ Ðwithin€the€statement,€and€signed€the€end€of€the€statement.€€Thus,€the€appellant€acquiesced€in€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðaccuracy€of€the€statement€and€adopted€it€as€his€own€statement€by€signing€each€page.€€òòSee€generallyóó€Ð $ t ÐòòPeople€v.€Venturaóó,€673€N.Y.S.2d€106,€107€(N.Y.€App.€Div.€1998).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð  ` ЀÌÌà@¤¤ ìàò òII.€€òòBradyóó€Violationó óˆÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€appellantððs€trial€commenced€on€December€8,€1998,€twenty„one€months€after€his€arrest.€Ð ¬ü  ÐOn€December€3,€1998,€defense€counsel€was€ð ðprovided€with€a€quantity€of€information€out€of€AgentÐ ˜è  ÐDavenportððs€investigation€file.€.€.€.ðð€€Included€in€this€information€was€the€statement€of€Jack€Hill.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р„Ô  ÐMr.€Hill€indicated€that€he€had€seen€the€victim€in€his€business€after€the€time€the€State€alleged€he€wasÐ pÀ Ðkilled€by€the€appellant.€The€State€responded€that€all€reports€resulting€from€the€investigation€from€theÐ \¬ Ðcrime€scene€were€reported€to€defense€counsel€as€soon€as€they€received€the€reports.€€Indeed,€defenseÐ H˜ Ðcounsel€was€provided€the€information€five€days€prior€to€trial€at€the€same€time€the€prosecutorððs€officeÐ 4„ Ðbecame€aware€of€the€material.€€The€issue€was€brought€to€the€courtððs€attention€and€an€instanterÐ  p Ðsubpoena€issued€for€Jack€Hill.€€Jack€Hill€testified€that€he€saw€the€victim€in€the€Woodlawn€Caf€atÐ  \ Ð6:00€p.m.€on€Saturday,€March€15.€€€The€appellant€concedes€that€this€testimony€ð ðnegat[ed]€prejudiceÐ øH Ðto€the€appellantððs€case.ððÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.Ct.€1194€(1963),€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€theÐ ¼  Ðprosecution€has€a€duty€to€furnish€the€defendant€with€exculpatory€evidence€relating€either€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendantððs€guilt€or€innocence€or€to€the€potential€punishment€that€may€be€imposed.€€To€establish€aÐ ”ä ÐòòBradyóó€violation,€the€appellant€must€show€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€three€essential€elementsÐ €Ð Ðwhich€include€(1)€the€suppression€of€the€information€by€the€State;€(2)€the€evidence€was€favorable€toÐ l¼ Ðthe€defendant;€and€(3)€the€evidence€was€material.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Edginóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€389„390Ð X ¨ Ð(Tenn.),€òòas€amended€on€rehððgóó,€(1995).€€In€the€present€case,€the€alleged€òòBradyóó€material€was€disclosedÐ D!” Ðto€defense€counsel€prior€to€trial.€€Thus,€the€first€prerequisite€is€not€satisfied.€€Additionally,€we€wouldÐ 0"€  Ðbe€constrained€to€conclude€that€the€information€was€either€exculpatory€or€material.€€The€witnessððÐ #l! Ðstatement€placed€the€victim€at€a€business€after€the€alleged€time€of€his€murder.€€The€time€of€death€wasÐ $X" Ðnot€a€critical€issue€in€the€Stateððs€prosecution€as€the€appellant€did€not€rely€upon€an€alibi€defense.€Ð ô$D # ÐMoreover,€the€statement€does€not€absolve€the€appellantððs€liability€for€the€murder.€€Thus,€we€fail€toÐ à%0!$ Ðfind€a€violation€of€òòBradyóó.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àAlthough€the€appellant,€in€essence,€admits€that€no€constitutional€violation€occurred,€he€ð ðurgesÐ ° Ðthis€Court€to€reaffirm€the€Stateððs€obligation€to€provide€exculpatory€information€in€a€timely€fashion.ðð€Ð œì Ðð ðTardy€disclosure€of€òòBradyóó€material€is€generally€not€reversible€error€unless€the€defendant€can€showÐ ˆØ Ðthat€he€was€denied€a€fair€trial.ðð€€òòUnited€State€v.€Gordonóó,€844€F.2d€1397€(9òòthóó€Cir.€1988);€òòUnited€StatesÐ tÄ Ðv.€Sheltonóó,€588€F.2d€1242€(9òòthóó€Cir.€1978),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€442€U.S.€909,€99€S.Ct.€2822€(1979).€€A€delayÐ `° Ðin€disclosing€òòBradyóó€material€requires€reversal€only€if€ð ðthe€lateness€of€the€disclosure€so€prejudiced€theÐ L œ Ðdefendantððs€preparation€or€presentation€of€his€defense€that€he€was€prevented€from€receiving€hisÐ 8 ˆ Ðconstitutionally€guaranteed€fair€trial.ðð€€òòSheltonóó,€588€F.2d€at€1247.€€In€the€present€case,€defenseÐ $ t Ðcounsel€received€the€information€five€days€prior€to€trial.€€The€trial€court€was€made€aware€of€defenseÐ  ` Ðcounselððs€concerns€and€issued€an€instanter€subpoena€for€the€witness.€€The€witness€testified€at€trialÐ ü L  Ðconsistent€with€his€prior€statement.€€Accordingly,€even€if€we€were€to€find€the€statement€exculpatoryÐ è 8  Ðand€material,€we€conclude€that€the€lateness€of€the€disclosure€did€not€prejudice€the€appellantððsÐ Ô$  Ðpreparation€of€his€defense.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð À  ÐÌÌà@©©ìàò òIII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óˆÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€next€complains€that€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial€is€insufficient€to€supportÐ \¬ Ðhis€conviction€for€the€second€degree€murder€of€Mark€Goins.€€Specifically,€he€contends€that€(1)€theÐ H˜ ÐState€failed€to€prove€the€essential€elements€of€second€degree€murder€and€(2)€the€State€failed€to€proveÐ 4„ Ðthe€identity€of€the€perpetrator€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð  p ÐÌà  àTennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(e)€provides€that€findings€of€guilt€"shall€be€setÐ øH Ðaside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€aÐ ä4 Ðreasonable€doubt."€€òòSee€also€óó€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€317,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€Ð Ð  ÐThe€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€from€the€defendant€and€replaces€it€withÐ ¼  Ðone€of€guilt;€thus,€on€appeal,€a€convicted€defendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidenceÐ ¨ø Ðis€insufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.1982).€€Moreover,€the€State€is€entitledÐ ”ä Ðto€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimate€inferences€whichÐ €Ð Ðmay€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.1992),òò€cert.€deniedóó,€507€U.S.Ð l¼ Ð954,€113€S.Ct.€1368€(1993).€€This€court€may€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.Ð X ¨ ÐCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.1978).€€These€principles€are€applicable€to€findings€of€guiltÐ D!” Ðpredicated€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€both€direct€andÐ 0"€  Ðcircumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1990).Ð #l! Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àThe€appellant€asserts€that€none€of€the€physical€evidence€collected€at€the€crime€sceneÐ ô$D # Ðidentified€him€as€the€perpetrator.€€Additionally,€he€contends€that€the€State€failed€to€produce€anÐ à%0!$ Ðeyewitness€who€could€conclusively€identify€the€appellant€as€the€long„haired€individual€accompanyingÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€victim€to€the€abandoned€apartment€on€the€date€of€the€murder.€€Essentially,€he€argues€that€theÐ ¸'#& Ðevidence€adduced€during€trial€is€contrary€to€the€appellantððs€confession€dated€March€22,€1997.€€TheÐ ¤(ô#' Ðidentity€of€the€defendant€as€the€perpetrator€is€certainly€an€indispensable€element€of€any€crime.€€TheÐ )à$( Ðevidence€offered€to€prove€identity,€however,€can€be€either€direct€or€circumstantial.€€òòState€v.Ð |*Ì%) ÐThompsonóó,€519€S.W.2d€789,€793€(Tenn.1975);€€€òòState€v.€Shelleyóó,€628€S.W.2d€436,€438€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð h+¸&* ÐApp.1981).€€Indeed,€in€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€identity€was€proved€not€only€circumstantially,€but€alsoÐ ° Ðmost€directly€by€the€appellantððs€confession,€which€left€very€little€to€speculation.€€òòSeeóó€€òòMonts€v.€Stateóó,Ð œì Ð379€S.W.2d€34,€40€(Tenn.€1964)€(confession€is€direct€evidence€of€guilt).€€Thus,€the€evidenceÐ ˆØ Ðestablishing€the€appellant€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€murder€is€more€than€sufficient.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àFinally,€in€order€to€obtain€a€conviction€for€second€degree€murder,€the€State€is€required€toÐ L œ Ðprove€that€the€appellant€caused€the€knowing€killing€of€another.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ 8 ˆ Ð39-13-210(a)(1).€€"A€person€acts€knowingly€with€respect€to€a€result€of€the€person's€conduct€when€theÐ $ t Ðperson€is€aware€that€the€conduct€is€reasonably€certain€to€cause€the€result."€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ  ` Ð39-11-302(b)€(1997).€€In€his€confession,€the€appellant€related,€ð ðI€took€the€knife€out€and€startedÐ ü L  Ðstabbing€him.€€I€donððt€know€how€many€times€I€stabbed€him.€.€.€.€When€I€stabbed€him€he€jerked.€€HeÐ è 8  Ðtried€to€hold€on€to€me€and€I€stabbed€him€again.ðð€€This€proof€is€sufficient€for€a€rational€trier€of€factÐ Ô$  Ðto€conclude€that€the€appellant€was€consciously€aware€of€the€nature€of€his€conduct€and€that€theÐ À  Ðconduct€was€reasonably€certain€to€cause€death.€€Accordingly,€we€find€the€evidence€more€thanÐ ¬ü  Ðsufficient€to€support€his€conviction€for€second€degree€murder.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ˜è  ÐÌÌà@ßßìàò òIV.€€Failure€to€Instruct€Jury€as€to€Defenses€of€Justification€and€Necessityó óˆÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€theÐ 4„ Ðdefenses€of€self-defense€and€the€defense€of€necessity.€€€At€trial,€the€appellant€requested€that€the€courtÐ  p Ðcharge€the€jury€on€these€defenses.€€The€court€denied€the€appellant's€requests,€finding€that€there€wasÐ  \ Ðno€proof€offered€to€raise€self-defense€or€necessity€as€legitimate€defenses€in€this€case.Ð øH ÐÌà  àEvery€defendant€has€the€right€to€have€every€issue€of€fact€raised€by€the€evidence€and€materialÐ Ð  Ðto€his€or€her€defense€submitted€to€the€jury€on€proper€instructions.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-11-203(c)Ð ¼  Ð(1997);Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-11-204(d)€(1997);€€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€889€S.W.2d€225,€229Ð ¨ø Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.1994).€€"[T]o€determine€whether€a€statutoryÐ ”ä Ðdefense€is€fairly€raised€by€the€proof€so€as€to€require€its€submission€to€the€jury,€a€court€must,€in€effect,Ð €Ð Ðconsider€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€defendant,€including€drawing€all€reasonableÐ l¼ Ðinferences€flowing€from€that€evidence."€€òòState€v.€Bultóó,€989€S.W.2d€730,€733€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð X ¨ Ð1998),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1999)€(citing€€òòState€v.€Shropshireóó,€874€S.W.2d€634,€639€(Tenn.Ð D!” ÐCrim.€App.1993)).Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€establish€a€claim€of€self-defense,€a€defendant€must€show€that€the€danger€of€deathÐ $X" Ðor€serious€bodily€harm€was€imminent€and€impending,€manifested€by€some€words€or€overt€acts€at€theÐ ô$D # Ðtime€clearly€indicative€of€a€present€purpose€to€do€injury.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-11-611€(1997).€€òòSeeÐ à%0!$ Ðalsoóó€€òòState€v.€Ivyóó,€868€S.W.2d€724,€727€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1993).€€Similarly,€to€establish€a€claim€ofÐ ° Ðnecessity,€a€defendant€must€show€that€he€reasonably€believed€his€conduct€necessary€to€avoidÐ œì Ðimminent€harm€and€€where€the€harm€sought€to€be€avoided€is€clearly€greater€than€the€harm€caused€byÐ ˆØ Ðthe€criminal€act.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„609€(1997);€Sentencing€Commission€Comments,Ð tÄ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„609.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€in€the€present€case€does€not€raise€an€inference€requiring€an€instruction€onÐ 8 ˆ Ðself-defense.€€There€is€no€proof€that€the€appellant€believed€there€was€the€danger€of€imminent€deathÐ $ t Ðor€serious€bodily€injury€based€upon€the€victimððs€actions€of€sexual€assault€upon€the€appellant.€Ð  ` ÐMoreover,€we€conclude€that€the€defense€of€necessity€was€not€fairly€raised.€€The€appellantððsÐ ü L  Ðconfession€dispels€any€finding€that€the€appellant€believed€that€he€was€threatened€by€imminent€harm.€Ð è 8  ÐMoreover,€we€would€only€find€rare€occasions,€of€which€this€is€not,€where€the€harm€sought€to€beÐ Ô$  Ðavoided,€òòi.e.óó,€a€sexual€assault,€is€greater€than€the€harm€caused€by€the€criminal€act,€òòi.e.óó,€death.€€Thus,Ð À  Ðthere€was€no€error€in€the€trial€court's€refusal€to€give€such€a€charge.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÌà@NNìàò òV.€€Lesser€Included€Offenseó óˆÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€additionally€complains€that€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€theÐ H˜ Ðlesser€included€offense€of€criminally€negligent€homicide€constituted€reversible€error.€€UnderÐ 4„ ÐTennessee€law,€the€trial€court€has€the€statutory€duty€to€charge€the€jury€as€to€the€law€of€each€offenseÐ  p Ðð ðincludedðð€in€an€indictment.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€€6€S.W.3d€453,€464€(Tenn.€1999)€(citing€Tenn.Ð  \ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110€(1997)).€€Thus,€the€focus€becomes€what€offenses€are€lesser€included€offensesÐ øH Ðof€the€offense€charged€in€the€indictment.€€Our€supreme€court€has€provided€the€following€definitionÐ ä4 Ðof€a€lesser€included€offense:Ð Ð  Ðà8  àAn€offense€is€a€lesser€included€offense:м Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)€if€all€of€its€statutory€elements€are€included€within€the€statutoryÐ ¨ø Ðelements€of€the€offense€charged;€orДä` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(b)€it€fails€to€meet€the€definition€in€part€(a)€only€in€the€respect€that€itÐ l¼ Ðcontains€a€statutory€element€or€elements€establishingÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€a€different€mental€state€indicating€a€lesser€kind€of€culpability;Ð 0"€  Ðand/orÐ#l!` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€a€less€serious€harm€or€risk€of€harm€to€the€same€person,€property,Ð $X" Ðor€public€interest;€orÐô$D #` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(c)€it€consists€of€.€.€.€facilitation€of€the€offense€charged€.€.€.€;€anÐ Ì&"% Ðattempt€to€commit€the€offense€charged€.€.€.solicitation€to€commit€theÐ ¸'#& Ðoffense€charged.Ф(ô#'` x` x ÐÌÓÓòòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€466„467.€€Ð |*Ì%) ЇÓÓà  àCriminally€negligent€homicide€is€defined€as€ð ðcriminally€negligent€conduct€which€results€inÐ ° Ðdeath.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„212(a)€(1997).€€Second€degree€murder€is€a€knowing€killing€ofÐ œì Ðanother.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210.€€Our€criminal€code€defines€the€mens€rea€of€criminalÐ ˆØ Ðnegligence€as€occurring€if€a€person€acts€intentionally,€knowingly,€or€recklessly.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð tÄ Ððð€39„11„301(a)(2)€(1997).€€Therefore,€ð ðan€offense€that€requires€that€the€accused€act€knowinglyÐ `° Ðnecessarily€includes€offenses€in€which€the€accusedððs€mental€state€was€one€of€criminal€negligence.ððÐ L œ ÐòòSeeóó€€€òòState€v.€Lynnóó,€924€S.W.2d€892,€899€(Tenn.€1996).€€Accordingly,€criminally€negligent€homicideÐ 8 ˆ Ðis€a€lesser€included€offense€of€second€degree€murder€under€part€(a)€of€the€òòBurnsóó€test.€€òòSee€generallyóó€Ð $ t ÐòòState€v.€Jumbo€Kurióó,€No.€M1999„00638„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€May€25,Ð  ` Ð2000)(criminally€negligent€homicide€lesser€included€offense€of€second€degree€murder);€òòState€v.Ð ü L  ÐVincent€C.€Simsóó,€No.€W1998„00634„CCA„R3„DD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Mar.€14,€2000)Ð è 8  Ð(criminally€negligent€homicide€lesser€included€offense€of€second€degree€murder).€€ThisÐ Ô$  Ðdetermination,€however,€is€not€conclusive€that€the€evidence€justifies€a€jury€instruction€on€such€lesserÐ À  Ðoffense.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àFirst,€the€trial€court€must€determine€whether€any€evidence€exists€that€reasonableÐ „Ô  Ðminds€could€accept€as€to€the€lesser„included€offense.€òòóó€€In€making€this€determination,Ð pÀ Ðthe€trial€court€must€view€the€evidence€liberally€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ \¬ Ðexistence€of€the€lesser„included€offense€without€making€any€judgments€on€theÐ H˜ Ðcredibility€of€such€evidence.€€òòóóSecond,€the€trial€court€must€determine€if€the€evidence,Ð 4„ Ðviewed€in€this€light,€is€legally€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€the€lesserÐ  p Ðincluded€offense.Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓòòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€469.€€Ð ä4 Ðà  àUnder€Tennessee€law,€ð ðcriminal€negligenceðð€€Ð ¼  ÐÓÓà8  àrefers€to€a€person€who€acts€with€criminal€negligence€with€respect€to€theÐ ”ä Ðcircumstances€surrounding€the€personððs€conduct€or€the€result€of€that€conduct€whenÐ €Ð Ðthe€person€ought€to€be€aware€of€a€substantial€and€unjustifiable€risk€that€theÐ l¼ Ðcircumstances€exist€or€the€result€will€occur.€€The€risk€must€be€of€such€a€nature€andÐ X ¨ Ðdegree€that€the€failure€to€perceive€it€constitutes€a€gross€deviation€from€the€standardÐ D!” Ðof€care€that€an€ordinary€person€would€exercise€under€all€circumstances€as€viewedÐ 0"€  Ðfrom€the€accused€personððs€standpoint.Ð#l!Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(4)€(1997).€€The€focus€in€a€criminal€negligence€prosecution€is€theÐ ô$D # Ðòòfailure€to€perceive€the€riskóó€created€by€the€defendantððs€conduct.€€òòSee€generallyóó€€òòLewis€v.€Stateóó,€529Ð à%0!$ ÐS.W.2d€550,€553€(Tex.€Crim.€App.€1975).€€Indeed,€the€offense€of€criminally€negligent€homicideÐ Ì&"% Ðinvolves€three€elements:€(1)€the€defendantððs€creation€of€a€substantial€and€unjustifiable€risk€that€theÐ ¸'#& Ðdeath€of€another€person€would€occur;€(2)€the€defendant€failed€to€perceive€such€substantial€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðunjustifiable€risk;€and€(3)€the€defendantððs€failure€to€perceive€the€risk€was€so€negligent€as€to€constituteÐ )à$( Ðin€law€a€gross€deviation€from€the€standard€of€care€that€a€reasonable€person€would€observe€in€the€sameÐ |*Ì%) Ðsituation.€€The€distinction€between€criminal€negligence€and€the€mental€states€of€intent,€knowledge,Ð h+¸&* Ðand€reckless,€is€that€the€latter€involve€an€awareness€of€the€harm€€which€will€(or€in€some€degreeÐ ° Ðprobably€will)€result€from€the€personððs€acts,€whereas€negligence€involves€the€failure€to€be€aware€ofÐ œì Ðprobable€results€in€a€situation€in€which€the€person€has€a€legal€duty€of€awareness.€€In€the€present€case,Ð ˆØ Ðthe€proof,€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€existence€of€the€lesser„included€offense,€reveals€that€theÐ tÄ Ðappellant€woke€up€to€find€the€disrobed€victim€on€top€of€him€performing€fellatio.€€The€appellantÐ `° Ðadmitted€that€he€ð ðlost€it,ðð€took€his€ð ðknife€out€and€started€stabbing€him.ðð€€It€is€clear€from€the€facts€ofÐ L œ Ðthis€case€that€the€appellant€created€the€risk€of€death,€thereby€satisfying€element€(1);€however,€it€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðequally€clear€that,€in€reference€to€the€second€element,€the€action€of€the€appellant€stabbing€the€victimÐ $ t Ðin€the€throat€demonstrates€that€the€appellant€perceived€the€risk€but€also€shows€that€he€was€aware€thatÐ  ` Ðhis€conduct€was€reasonably€certain€to€cause€the€death€of€the€victim.€€€Thus,€contrary€to€theÐ ü L  Ðappellantððs€contention,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€not€submitting€an€instructionÐ è 8  Ðto€the€jury€upon€the€offense€of€criminally€negligent€homicide.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÌà  àà@__#ìàò òVI.€€Sentencingó óˆà p àà È àÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€his€final€challenge,€the€appellant€avers€that€the€trial€court€improperly€considered€andÐ pÀ Ðapplied€statutory€enhancing€factors€and€failed€to€apply€statutory€mitigating€factors€in€sentencing€himÐ \¬ Ðto€serve€a€sentence€of€twenty„three€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€He€contends€that€the€trialÐ H˜ Ðcourtððs€application€of€enhancement€factor€(4),€the€victim€was€particularly€vulnerable,€Tenn.€CodeÐ 4„ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(4)€(1997),€is€unsupported€by€the€record€and€that€application€of€enhancement€factorÐ  p Ð(9),€use€of€deadly€weapon€during€commission€of€the€offense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(9),€isÐ  \ Ðerroneous.€€Moreover,€he€contends€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€properly€consider€and€weigh€inÐ øH Ðmitigation€factors€which€should€have€resulted€in€a€lesser€sentence.€€Specifically,€the€appellantÐ ä4 Ðsubmits€that€the€court€failed€to€consider€the€following€mitigating€factors:€(2)€the€appellant€actedÐ Ð  Ðunder€strong€provocation€and€(3)€substantial€grounds€exist€tending€to€excuse€or€justify€theÐ ¼  Ðdefendantððs€criminal€conduct€though€failing€to€establish€a€defense.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€€Code€Ann.€ððÐ ¨ø Ð40-35-113€(2);€„113(3)€(1997).Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àReview,€by€this€court,€of€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence€is€òòde€novoóó€withÐ l¼ Ða€presumption€that€the€determination€made€by€the€trial€court€is€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ X ¨ Ð40-35-401(d)€(1997).€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.1991).€€Thus,€this€courtÐ D!” Ðmay€only€modify€a€sentence€if€the€sentence€is€excessive€or€the€manner€of€service€is€inappropriate.€Ð 0"€  ÐòòState€v.€Russellóó,€773€S.W.2d€913,€915€(Tenn.1989).€€Moreover,€on€appeal,€the€appellant€bears€theÐ #l! Ðburden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€imposed€was€improper.€€Sentencing€Commission€Comments,Ð $X" ÐTenn.€€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d).Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€Lisa€Reed,€the€victimððs€sister,€testified€that€her€brother€was€moreÐ Ì&"% Ðlike€a€son€to€her.€€After€their€mother€died,€Ms.€Reed€was€given€the€responsibility€of€raising€herÐ ¸'#& Ðbrother€who€had€been€mentally€handicapped€from€birth.€€She€testified€that€the€twenty„seven€year€oldÐ ¤(ô#' Ðvictim€ð ðwas€like€a€little€kid.€€He€never€hurt€nobody.€€He€thought€everybody€loved€him€.€.€.€€HeÐ )à$( Ðthought€nobody€would€ever€hurt€him.€And€he€done€anything€for€anybody€that€he€could.ðð€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àChristine€OððDell€testified€that€she€is€the€appellantððs€older€sister.€She€stated€that€there€wereÐ ° Ðseven€children€in€the€family.€€She€explained€that€the€appellant€ð ðwasnððt€like€the€rest€of€the€kids.€€HeÐ œì Ðcouldnððt€.€.€.€cope.ðð€€He€was€unable€to€attend€public€school€and€eventually€was€sent€to€Daniel€ArthurÐ ˆØ ÐRehabilitation€School€for€mentally€retarded€and€handicapped€kids.€€She€added€that€he€never€learnedÐ tÄ Ðto€read€and€write€very€well.€€Unable€to€secure€employment,€the€appellant€performs€mostly€odd€jobs;Ð `° ÐMs.€OððDell€described€the€appellant€as€ð ða€jack€of€all€trades€and€the€master€of€none.ðð€€She€furtherÐ L œ Ðadmitted€that€the€appellant€liked€to€drink€alcohol€and€had€been€convicted€of€DUI.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€arriving€at€its€sentencing€determination,€the€trial€court€made€the€following€findings:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  à.€.€.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à.€.€.€[T]he€Court€does€find€that€because€of€his€peculiar€situation,€because€of€hisÐ À  Ðhandicap€that€he€was€an€especially€vulnerable€victim.€Now€obviously€you€do€not€haveÐ ¬ü  Ðto€be€vulnerable€to€be€killed.€€.€.€.€if€a€victim€is€particularly€vulnerable.€€They€donððtÐ ˜è  Ðwant€these€people,€these€types€of€people€hurt€and€so€they€very€reasonably€make€thatÐ „Ô  Ðan€Enhancement€factor€and€the€Court€so€finds.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àAnd€certainly€the€Court€does€find€that€the€defendant€by€the€statement€that€wasÐ H˜ Ðattributed€to€him€did€use€a€deadly€weapon,€to„wit€a€knife.Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àThe€Court€in€looking€at€the€suggested€mitigating€factors€.€.€.€€And€the€Court€doesÐ  \ Ðreject€that€any€alleged€acts€of€the€victim€constituted€strong€provocation.€€The€CourtÐ øH Ðfinds€that€there€is€no€strong€provocation€in€this€case,€especially€looking€at€the€numberÐ ä4 Ðof€wounds€and€the€manner€of€the€crime€itself€certainly€does€not€indicate€strongÐ Ð  Ðprovocation€caused€by€any€act€of€the€victim.€€There€is€no€justification€for€this€type€ofÐ ¼  Ðcriminal€conduct.€.€.€.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àNow,€certainly€he€like€the€victim€has€had€some€mental€problems€and€the€Court€doesÐ €Ð Ðtake€that€into€consideration.€€He€is€obviously,€he€isnððt€at€a€hundred€percent.€€He€hasÐ l¼ Ðsome€problems€communicating€and€the€Court€takes€that€into€consideration€in€talkingÐ X ¨ Ðabout€that€he€does€suffer€somewhat€from€a€mental€problem.€€And€Iððve€recognizedÐ D!” Ðthat.€.€.€.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àStarting€in€the€mid„range€as€required€by€the€statute€and€having€weighed€all€of€theÐ $X" Ðenhancement€factors€and€I€certainly€I€do€think,€especially€the€vulnerability€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðvictim€is€an€overriding€factor€in€this€case.€€This€young€man€was€as€I€say€a€street€childÐ à%0!$ Ðin€so€many€words€and€I€think€it€was€especially€easy€to€take€advantage€of€thisÐ Ì&"% Ðsituation.€€I€donððt€know€what€happened€up€there,€I€donððt€know€that€we€will€ever€knowÐ ¸'#& Ðother€than€someone€got€tragically€killed.€.€.€.Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àAnd€taking€into€consideration€that€the€defendant€does€have€some€limitations€the€courtÐ |*Ì%) Ðthinks€that€the€appropriate€sentence€is€twenty„three€years€in€the€State€penitentiary.ÓÓÐh+¸&*Ð Ð  ЇÓÓA.€Enhancement€FactorsÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€two€enhancement€factors€applicable:€(4)€the€victim€was€particularlyÐ ˆØ Ðvulnerable€and€(9)€the€defendant€possessed€a€deadly€weapon€during€the€commission€of€the€crime.€Ð tÄ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(4),€„114(9).€€The€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€is€not€an€element€of€theÐ `° Ðoffense€of€second€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210.€€This€court€has€ruled€thatÐ L œ Ðenhancing€a€murder€sentence€for€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€is€permissible.€€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€900Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€305,€313€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1994).€€The€court€properly€applied€factor€(9).òòóóòòóóÐ $ t ÐÌà  àOur€supreme€court€has€provided€guidance€in€assessing€whether€the€State€had€met€its€burdenÐ ü L  Ðin€establishing€the€vulnerability€of€the€victim.€€Specifically,€the€reviewing€court€should€considerÐ è 8  Ðwhether€evidence€in€the€record€with€regard€to€the€victimððs€age€or€physical€or€mental€attributesÐ Ô$  Ðdemonstrated€an€inability€to€resist€the€crime,€summon€help,€or€testify€at€a€later€date.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,Ð À  Ð945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€35€(Tenn.€1993)Ð ¬ü  Ð(emphasis€added;€citations€omitted));€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€482,€487€(Tenn.€1996).òòóóÐ ˜è  ÐThe€evidence€need€not€be€extensive;€nonetheless,€the€State€must€prove€the€factor€is€applicable.€€òòId.óó€Ð „Ô  ÐMoreover,€the€court€must€consider€the€nature€of€the€offense€and€the€manner€in€which€it€wasÐ pÀ Ðcommitted.€€òòId.óó€€In€other€words,€an€offense€may€be€committed€in€such€a€manner€as€to€make€theÐ \¬ Ðvictimððs€vulnerability€irrelevant.€€òòId.óó€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€€òòButleróó,€900€S.W.2d€at€305€(defendant€shot€and€killedÐ H˜ Ðelderly€woman;€held,€although€victim€had€physical€disability€and€walked€with€a€cane,€State€failedÐ 4„ Ðto€show€victimððs€vulnerability€because€no€victim€could€have€resisted€the€offense€committed€in€thatÐ  p Ðmanner).€€In€short,€the€court€must€consider€all€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€offense€inÐ  \ Ðdetermining€whether€the€particular€vulnerability€factor€is€appropriate€for€the€offense.€€òòPooleòòóó,€óó945Ð øH ÐS.W.2d€at€97.Ð ä4 Ðà  àÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€State€presented€testimony€that€the€victim€was€mentally€handicapped.€Ð ¼  ÐHis€sister/guardian€testified€that€the€victim€thought€everyone€loved€him€and€that€nobody€€would€hurtÐ ¨ø Ðhim.€€Although€the€victim€was€twenty„seven€years€old,€his€sister€regarded€him€as€a€child.€€WeÐ ”ä Ðacknowledge€the€victimððs€mental€impairment€and€his€naivety.€€However,€€under€the€guidanceÐ €Ð Ðprovided€by€our€supreme€court,€we€cannot€conclude€that€Mark€Goinsðð€mental€impairment€was€aÐ l¼ Ðfactor€in€his€victimization€in€this€case.€€€Rather,€the€proof€shows€that€it€was€the€victim€who€led€theÐ X ¨ Ðappellant,€also€mentally€impaired,€to€the€apartment€and€it€was€the€victim€who€disrobed€and€initiatedÐ D!” Ðsexual€contact€with€the€appellant.€€Based€upon€the€victimððs€active€participation€in€the€events€priorÐ 0"€  Ðto€his€death,€€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€victimððs€mental€disability€made€him€particularlyÐ #l! Ðvulnerable€to€the€offense€committed.€€Accordingly,€we€find€application€of€enhancement€factor€(4)Ð $X" Ðis€error.Ð ô$D # ÐÌB.€€Mitigating€factorsÐ Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€argues€that€(2)€he€acted€under€strong€provocation€and€(3)€his€conduct€isÐ ¤(ô#' Ðjustified€although€failing€to€establish€a€defense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-113(2);€„113(3).€€HeÐ )à$( Ðasserts€that€these€factors€are€apparent€from€the€proof€developed€at€trial.€€We€agree€with€the€trialÐ |*Ì%) Ðcourtððs€finding€that€the€appellantððs€conduct€was€not€justified€as€provided€by€mitigating€factor€(3).€€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àWith€reference€to€the€assertion€of€factor€(2),€provocation,€the€facts€reveal€that€the€appellantÐ ° Ðaccompanied€the€victim€to€an€abandoned€apartment.€€The€appellant,€who€had€been€drinking€earlierÐ œì Ðthat€day,€ð ðpassed€outðð€on€a€bed.€€When€he€awoke,€the€victim€had€ð ðmy€britches€down€and€unzippedððÐ ˆØ Ðand€was€naked€on€top€of€him€performing€fellatio.€€At€this€point,€the€appellant€punched€the€victim€inÐ tÄ Ðthe€face,€reached€for€his€knife€and€stabbed€the€unarmed€victim€three€times€in€the€neck.€€The€appellantÐ `° Ðstated€that€he€ð ðjust€wanted€him€to€get€the€hell€away€from€me.€.€.€.ðð€€The€medical€examinerððs€reportÐ L œ Ðconfirms€that€the€victim€was€involved€in€ð ðsome€sexual€activityðð€at€or€near€the€time€of€the€victimððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðdeath.ðð€€Upon€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððsÐ $ t Ðfinding€that€provocation,€for€sentencing€purposes,€was€not€established.€€òòBlackððs€Law€DictionaryÐ  ` Ðóódefines€provocation€as€ð ðconduct€or€actions€on€the€part€of€one€person€towards€another€as€tend€toÐ ü L  Ðarouse€rage,€resentment,€or€fury€in€the€latter€against€the€former,€and€thereby€cause€him€to€do€someÐ è 8  Ðillegal€act€against€or€in€relation€to€the€person€offering€the€provocation€.€.€.€There€must€be€a€state€ofÐ Ô$  Ðpassion€without€time€to€cool€placing€defendant€beyond€control€of€his€reason.€.€.€.ðð€€òòBlackððs€LawÐ À  ÐDictionaryóó€1103€(1990€6òòthóó€ed.).€€€We€find€that€the€facts€of€this€case€fit€this€definition€of€provocationÐ ¬ü  Ðand,€although€not€excusing€culpability€for€the€senseless€homicide,€nonetheless,€€provides€theÐ ˜è  Ðmotivation€for€the€appellantððs€conduct.€Accordingly,€the€court€erred€by€failing€to€apply€mitigatingÐ „Ô  Ðfactor€(2).€Ð pÀ ÐÌC.€Weighing€of€Enhancement€and€Mitigating€FactorsÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àWhen€there€are€enhancement€factors€and€mitigating€factors,€the€trial€court,€for€a€class€AÐ  p Ðfelony,€must€start€at€the€midpoint€in€the€range,€enhance€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriateÐ  \ Ðfor€the€enhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€theÐ øH Ðmitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(c),€(e)€(1997).€€€For€a€range€I€standard€offenderÐ ä4 Ðconvicted€of€second€degree€murder,€the€sentencing€range€is€fifteen€to€twenty-five€years.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð Ð  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39-13-210;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-112(a)(1)€(1997).€€Because€the€appellant€wasÐ ¼  Ðconvicted€of€a€Class€A€felony,€the€starting€point€for€sentencing€purposes€is€twenty€years,€which€isÐ ¨ø Ðthe€midpoint€in€the€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210(c).€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€twenty-threeÐ ”ä Ðyear€sentence.€€However,€we€have€concluded€that€application€of€enhancement€factor€(4)€was€error.€Ð €Ð ÐOne€enhancement€factor,€use€of€a€deadly€weapon,€and€two€mitigating€factors,€appellantððs€mentalÐ l¼ Ðcondition€and€provocation,׃ä×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€remain.€€€In€view€of€our€finding€that€the€trial€court€misapplied€enhancingÐ X ¨ Ðfactor€(4)€and€failed€to€apply€mitigating€factor€(2),€modification€of€the€twenty„three€year€sentenceÐ D!” Ðis€necessary.€€Upon€òòde€novoóó€review,€after€weighing€the€remaining€enhancement€factor€and€theÐ 0"€  Ðstatutory€mitigators,€we€conclude€that€a€sentence€of€eighteen€years€is€justified.€€Ð #l! ÐÌÐ ô$D # Ðà  àAfter€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€appellantððs€conviction€for€second€degree€murder.€Ð ° ÐHowever,€upon€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€appellant's€sentence,€we€modify€the€sentence€imposed€by€theÐ œì Ðtrial€court€from€twenty„three€years€to€eighteen€years€to€be€served€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€Ð ˆØ ÐThis€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€entry€of€an€order€modifying€the€sentence€in€the€mannerÐ tÄ Ðconsistent€with€this€opinion.Ð `° ÐÔ#†XòsXX X<#]#ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à__________________________________________Ð ì<  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE