ÿWPCŸ= …U:V % 0C– 0JÙ 0T# 0^w 0hÕ 0r= 0|¯ 0†+ 0± 1uA U,¶ 0dâ F N n­^ 0Ü Bç 0 4$ D38 0@kU,«U*×B)DC* AMmɺ­ƒ0¨B¨ê~’,œ<ÕØ!ä­#ç‘%¡x(Ù*ò+åò-Ú×0v~±2vÓ/4 AO:ÆQ: 0ø; 0D= D/S= B‚=<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTX(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ3|x«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@(´È$¡¡ÑÑÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Ó d(Ð(3 Î$¤¤Ý ƒÈ!ÝÑÑÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóóo„pÔô4 'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd€-4Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¿Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌMarchÏ22,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€2Ô€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Huff€did€not€recall€telling€police€that€he€heard€a€knock€at€the€door€and€saw€theÏappellant€when€he€opened€it.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÓ  Ó€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Copies€of€the€letter,€both€as€written€by€the€appellant€and€as€edited€andÏpublished€in€the€newspaper,€were€introduced€into€evidence.€€Experts€testified€thatÏthe€letter€was€written€in€the€appellant's€handwriting.Ì žÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÓ  Ó€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Huff€was€not€mentioned€by€name;€rather,€the€letter€mentioned€the€appellant'sÏ"strong€homosexual€neighbor."Ì žÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÓ  Ó€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€According€to€Howell,€Huff€"wasn't€really€upset"€about€the€letter€but€may€haveÏbeen€"a€little€bit€angry."Ì tÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÓ  Ó€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€The€testing€also€revealed€traces€of€caffeine€but€no€ephedrine.Ì "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÓ  Ó€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Nonetheless,€the€report€of€the€evaluation€team€was€dated€December€17,€1991.€ÏCraddock€said€that€the€report€reflected€the€date€of€the€initial€conference€evenÏthough€subsequent€staff€conferences€were€held€as€more€information€was€obtained.Ì ’Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÓ  Ó€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Effective€July€1,€1995,€however,€insanity€is€shown€where€"as€a€result€of€aÏsevere€mental€disease€or€defect,€[the€defendant]€was€unable€to€appreciate€theÏnature€or€wrongfulness€of€[his]€acts."€€Moreover,€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€toÏprove€insanity€by€"clear€and€convincing€evidence."€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„11„501(a)„(c)(1995€Supp.).Ì ËÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÓ  Ó€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Effective€July€1,€1995,€the€element€of€deliberation€was€deleted€from€firstÏdegree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„202(a)(1)(1995€Supp.).Ì ÚÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÓ  Ó€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€We€note€that€òòOwensóó€was€based€solely€on€the€court's€interpretation€of€theÏrelevant€statutes.€€As€discussed,€òòBarnettóó€was€based€on€a€constitutional€ground.Ì ÝÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÓ  Ó€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€It€is€unclear€from€the€record€when€the€appellant€received€the€MTMHI€reportÏdated€December€17,€1991.€€There€is€a€letter€from€MTMHI€dated€May€5,€1992,€whichÏstates€its€conclusion€that€there€was€no€basis€for€an€insanity€defense.€€However,Ïthere€is€an€order€dated€August€21,€1993,€which€directed€MTMHI€officials€to€provideÏfull€disclosure€of€the€appellant's€medical€records,€including€the€December€17Ïreport,€to€the€appellant.€Ì —Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÓ  Ó€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€This€ground€for€admissibility€was€apparently€abandoned,€and€it€has€not€beenÏargued€on€appeal.€€€€Ì ÏÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÓ  Ó€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€This€ground€was€not€argued€in€the€trial€court€and€is€likely€waived.€€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€103(a)(2).€€In€any€event,€we€have€concluded€that€it€is€without€merit.Ì öÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ%$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€2Ô€€à à€€The€appellant€does€not€contend€on€appeal€that€a€specific€privilegeÏwas€applicable;€thus,€we€deem€these€contentions€made€at€trial€as€waived.à àÌ ÛÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÓ  Ó€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„604€was€replaced€by€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€39„2„103.€€The€replacement€contained€the€identicalÏelements€for€the€crime€of€assault€with€intent€to€commit€murder.€€The€classificationÏtable€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„118€indicates€that€section€39„2„103€is€to€be€treated€as€a€class€A€felony.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€found€that€section€39„604€was€also€a€class€A€felony.Ì ÐÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÓ  Ó€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Not€all€of€the€sentences€for€aggravated€assault€were€to€run€consecutively.€ÏCounts€five€and€six€are€concurrent,€and€counts€seven€and€eight€are€concurrent.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(Ð3[ë$¢¢Ý ƒÈ!ÝÑÑÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal[  AØ'Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€11X„d&ÓÑ#€11Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÑ7€ŸXXdÖdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓÓÔ€2ÔÙ€€ÙßL€564;+'h|` ´- `€€Lßà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEóóÌà@ àJUNE€1995€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#01C01„9409„CC„00307Ìà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà à*à àMONTGOMERYÏCOUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Robert€W.ÏWedemeyer,€JudgeÌÓÓLESTER€A.€PEAVYHOUSE,à à*à à(First€DegreeÏMurder;€Attempted€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà à€First€and€Second€Degree€Murder;Ïà àà àà àAPPELLANT.à à*à àÏAggravated€Assault;€Possessing€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÏUnlawful€Weapon)Ìà àà àà àà àà à*€€€€Ìà àà àÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àòòà àFor€theÏAppellee:óóÌÌRussel€A.€Churchà àà àà àà àCharles€W.ÏBursonÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€and€ReporterÌ109€S.€Second€St.à àà àà àà à450€JamesÍRobertson€ParkwayÌClarksville,€TN€37040à àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€David€BridgersÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Wesley€Carney,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àArthur€F.€BieberÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à204€Franklin€Street€Suite€200Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àClarksville,€TN€37040ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àEdward€DeWerffÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à204€Franklin€Street€Suite€200Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àClarksville,€TN€37040Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àÌà àÌOPINION€FILED:òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌà àà àThe€appellant,€Lester€A.€Peavyhouse,€was€convicted€of€two€counts€ofÏfirst€degree€murder,€one€count€of€attempted€first€degree€murder,€one€count€ofÍattempted€second€degree€murder,€four€counts€of€aggravated€assault€with€a€deadlyÏweapon,€and€one€count€of€possession€of€an€unlawful€weapon.€€The€appellantÏreceived€two€life€sentences€for€the€first€degree€murder€convictions€(counts€one€andÏtwo),€to€be€served€consecutively.€€He€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II,€multipleÏoffender€on€the€remaining€counts€as€follows:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àòòCount€Threeóó:€€Attempted€First€Degree€Murder,€a€class€AÏfelony,€thirty„five€years€to€be€served€concurrently€withÏcount€four€and€consecutively€to€the€remainingÏsentences;ÌÌà8 àà8 àòòCount€Fouróó:€€Attempted€Second€Degree€Murder,€a€classÏB€felony,€fourteen€years€to€be€served€concurrently€withÏcount€three€and€consecutively€to€the€remainingÏsentences;ÌÌà8 àà8 àòòCount€Fiveóó:€€Aggravated€Assault,€a€class€C€felony,€nineÏyears€to€be€served€concurrently€with€count€six€andÏconsecutively€to€the€remaining€sentences;ÌÌà8 àà8 àòòCount€Sixóó:€€Aggravated€Assault,€a€class€C€felony,€nineÏyears€to€be€served€concurrently€with€count€five€andÏconsecutively€to€the€remaining€sentences;ÌÌà8 àà8 àòòCount€Sevenóó:€Aggravated€Assault,€a€class€C€felony,€nineÏyears€to€be€served€concurrently€with€count€eight€andÏconsecutively€to€the€remaining€sentences;ÌÌà8 àà8 àòòCount€Eightóó:€Aggravated€Assault,€a€class€C€felony,€nineÏyears€to€be€served€concurrently€with€count€seven€andÏconsecutively€to€the€remaining€sentences;€andÌÌà8 àà8 àòòCount€Nineóó:€€Possession€of€an€Unlawful€Weapon,€aÏclass€E€felony,€three€years€to€be€served€consecutively€toÍthe€remaining€sentences.ÌÌÓÓThus,€the€aggregate€sentence€is€two€consecutive€life€terms€plus€fifty„six€years€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction.ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€the€appellant€raises€the€following€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(a)€€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€establish€theÏappellant's€sanity€at€the€time€of€the€offenses;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€allow€theÏappellant€to€request€expert€services€in€an€òòexóó€òòparteóóÏproceeding;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(c)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€theÏappellant's€motion€for€appointment€of€a€psychiatrist;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(d)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€a€policeÏreport€detailing€a€prior€incident€between€one€of€theÏvictims€and€the€appellant;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(e)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€toÏcall€Chris€Johnson€as€a€rebuttal€witness;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(f)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€toÏcall€Dr.€Carl€Selavka€as€a€rebuttal€witness;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(g)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€theÏappellant's€motion€for€a€mistrial€based€on€theÏprosecution's€conduct€with€regard€to€Dr.€Selavka;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(h)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€Dr.€SelavkaÏto€testify€as€an€expert€witness€in€the€field€of€hair€growthÏanalysis;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(i)€€whether€the€trial€court€imposed€improper€sentences.ÌÌÓÓWe€conclude€that€there€is€no€reversible€error€in€the€record,€and€we€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àOn€October€31,€1991,€a€Halloween€party€was€held€at€the€residence€ofÏRobert€Huff€in€Clarksville,€Tennessee.€€Those€in€attendance€included€the€victims€ofÏthe€first€degree€murders,€Misty€Harding€and€Billy€Hembree,€the€victims€of€theÏattempted€first€and€second€degree€murders,€David€Ross€and€Huff,€and€the€victims€ofÏthe€aggravated€assaults,€Charity€Baggett,€Deanna€Shepherd,€Walter€Scott€Palmer,Ïand€Jeffrey€Underwood.€€Several€in€attendance€were€dressed€in€HalloweenÏcostumes;€Huff€and€Billy€Hembree€were€dressed€in€women's€clothing,€completeÏwith€make€up€and€high€heeled€shoes.€€ÌÌà àà àAround€midnight,€the€appellant,€who€lived€in€an€adjacent€apartment,Ïcalled€the€police€to€complain€about€the€loud€music€and€noise€from€the€party.€€OfficerÏRobert€Osterholtz€responded€to€the€call,€talked€to€several€people,€and€told€them€notÏto€play€the€music€too€loud.€€Osterholtz€described€the€appellant€as€"upset€and€a€littleÏangry."€€The€appellant€told€Osterholtz€that€he€had€been€harassed€by€occupants€ofÏHuff's€apartment€on€prior€occasions.€€The€appellant€described€the€harassment€asÍbeing€of€a€homosexual€nature.€€€ÌÌà àà àSeveral€witnesses€testified€that€Robert€Huff€was€upset€that€theÏappellant€had€called€the€police.€€According€to€Brian€Jurisin,€Huff€stood€up€and€saidÏhe€was€"going€to€go€kick€[the€appellant's]€ass."€€Huff€had€been€drinking€beer€andÏappeared€to€be€intoxicated.€€Jurisin€and€Chris€Johnson€tried€to€stop€Huff€fromÏleaving€the€apartment,€but€he€opened€the€front€door€and€took€one€or€two€stepsÏoutside.€€Jurisin€saw€the€door€to€the€appellant's€apartment€open;€he€then€heard€aÏgunshot,€and€Huff€said€he€had€been€shot.€€Jurisin€pulled€Huff€back€into€theÏapartment€and€shut€the€door.€€Most€everyone€ran€for€the€back€door.€€JurisinÏbelieved€he€heard€six€or€seven€shots€as€he€fled€from€the€house,€and€he€was€awareÏof€"some€short€period€of€time,"€perhaps€fifteen€or€twenty€seconds,€between€eachÏshot.ÌÌà àà àDavid€Ross€testified€that€he€heard€a€gunshot€and€saw€Robert€HuffÏbeing€"blown€back€into"€the€apartment.€€Huff€yelled€that€he€had€been€shot,€andÏeveryone€ran€toward€the€back€of€the€apartment.€€Ross€ran€into€the€bathroom€alongÏwith€Misty€Harding€and€Huff.€€Seconds€later,€the€bathroom€door€was€kicked€open.€ÏThe€appellant€fired€one€shot€into€Ross's€stomach€with€a€sawed„off€shotgun.€€RossÏfell€backward€and€grabbed€his€stomach;€he€was€bleeding€badly.€€He€then€saw€theÍappellant€reload€the€shotgun€and€shoot€Harding,€who€fell€back€into€the€bathtub.€ÏRoss€believed€that€five€or€ten€seconds€separated€the€shot€that€hit€him€from€the€shotÏthat€hit€Harding.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€then€left€the€bathroom€"jumping€and€screaming,"€andÏacting€"like€a€wild€person."€€Ross€managed€to€walk€out€the€back€door€of€the€house,Ïand€he€saw€several€people€getting€into€Deanna€Shepherd's€car.€€The€appellantÏfired€two€shots€at€the€car,€which€then€sped€away€from€the€scene€in€reverse.€€RossÏwas€taken€to€the€Emergency€Room€at€Clarksville€Memorial€Hospital€and€then€flownÏto€Vanderbilt€Hospital€where€he€had€two€operations€and€remained€for€sixteen€days.€ÏWhile€hospitalized,€Ross€told€police€that€Huff€had€said,€"This€guy€[appellant]€isÏcrazy....He's€killed€his€sister€before€or€tried€to€kill€her."€ÌÌà àà àDeanna€Shepherd€testified€that€she€ran€out€of€the€house€after€hearingÏthe€first€gunshot€and€seeing€Robert€Huff€fall€back€into€the€room.€€She€ran€to€her€carÏwith€Scott€Palmer,€Charity€Baggett,€and€Jeff€Underwood.€€David€Ross€ran€towardÏthe€car€holding€his€stomach.€€Shepherd€then€saw€the€appellant€come€around€theÏside€of€the€house€with€"a€long€gun."€€Palmer€was€driving€Shepherd's€car;€he€backedÏaway€from€the€scene€as€the€appellant€fired€shots€at€them.€€The€first€shot€missed.€€AÏsecond€shot€hit€the€driver's€side€window.€€Shepherd€believed€that€she€heard€fourÍshots€in€all.€€€€ÌÌà àà àRobert€Huff€testified€that€he€had€consumed€about€a€case€of€beer€andÏwas€"really,€really€drunk."€He€remembered€that€the€police€complained€about€theÏmusic,€but€he€did€not€recall€seeing€the€appellant.€€After€the€police€left,€Huff€openedÏhis€front€door.€€He€saw€the€appellant€holding€a€shotgun€and€"grinning€from€ear€toÏear."€€The€appellant€shot€him€in€the€chest.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€Huff€ran€to€the€bathroom€to€wash€theÏblood€from€his€wound;€he€then€heard€a€"loud€crash"€in€the€bathroom€and€MistyÏHarding€fell€into€the€tub€on€top€of€him.€€He€did€not€see€who€shot€Harding,€nor€did€heÏrecall€seeing€David€Ross€in€the€bathroom.€€ÌÌà àà àHuff€acknowledged€that€he€is€bisexual.€He€did€not€recall€makingÏhomosexual€threats€toward€the€appellant€or€leaving€notes€under€the€appellant'sÏdoor€suggesting€homosexual€acts.€€He€also€did€not€recall€a€prior€instance€in€whichÏthe€appellant€reported€homosexual€threats€to€the€police.€€Huff€testified€that€a€friend,ÏKevin€Howell,€had€shown€him€a€letter€the€appellant€had€written€to€the€editor€of€theÏAustin€Peay€University€newspaper.€€The€letter€was€in€response€to€a€"gayÍawareness"€article,€and€it€was€published€on€October€23,€1991.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€It€containedÏderogatory€remarks€about€homosexuals,€referred€to€threats€made€by€homosexualÏmen€against€heterosexual€men,€and€included€a€veiled€reference€to€Huff'sÏhomosexual€threats€against€the€appellant.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€The€letter€concluded€thatÏ"homosexuals€should€not€be€surprised€if€they€get€bashed."€€Huff€said€he€read€part€ofÏthe€letter,€threw€it€down,€and€did€not€think€about€it€any€longer.× ƒ: ××  ×€€Ìà àà àKevin€Howell€was€also€at€the€Halloween€party.€€He€testified€thatÏRobert€Huff€got€angry€after€the€appellant€called€the€police.€€As€Huff€walked€out€theÏdoor,€Howell€saw€a€flash€and€heard€a€gunshot.€€Everyone€tried€to€run€from€theÏapartment;€Howell€left€the€building€and€ran€down€the€street.€€As€he€did,€he€heardÏBilly€Hembree€"screaming€at€the€top€of€his€lungs."€He€then€heard€another€gunshot.€ÏHowell€believed€that€he€heard€four€shots€fired€no€more€than€one€minute€apart.ÌÌà àà àHowell€ran€to€the€Minit€Market€convenience€store€a€few€blocks€fromÏthe€scene€and€called€911.€€He€went€into€the€restroom€to€try€to€calm€down.€€When€heÏcame€out€he€saw€the€appellant€talking€on€the€telephone.€€The€appellant€wasÏcovered€with€blood€but€sounded€"very€calm€and€serene."€€Howell€asked€the€storeÏclerk€for€change,€left€the€store,€and€used€a€pay€phone€to€call€911€a€second€time.€€AsÏhe€did,€a€Tennessee€highway€patrolman€and€a€Clarksville€police€officer€pulled€intoÏthe€parking€lot.€€Howell€told€the€officers€that€the€appellant€was€inside€the€store.ÌÌà àà àErnestine€Keith€was€working€at€the€Minit€Market.€€The€appellant€was€aÏregular€customer.€€She€saw€him€enter€the€store€around€midnight.€€The€appellantÏasked€to€use€the€store€phone€and€said€that€it€was€an€emergency.€€Keith€did€notÏnotice€anything€unusual€about€the€appellant;€she€said€that€he€was€"very€calm"€andÏspoke€in€a€normal€tone€of€voice.€€The€appellant€then€ended€his€phone€conversationÏby€saying€"never€mind,€they€are€on€their€way."€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€had€called€911€from€the€store.€€The€State€introducedÏthe€tape€recording€of€the€call:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à"This€is€911,€can€I€help€you?"ÌÌà8 àà8 à"911,€this€is€Lester€Peavyhouse€and€I€am€at€the€MinitÏMart€at€Crossland€and€Greenwood,€and€there€has€beenÍa€disturbance€at€my€house€where€I€was€living,€could€aÏpolice€officer€come€and€talk€to€me€at€the€Minit€Market?"ÌÌà àà à"Okay,€just€a€minute€sir,€don't€hang€up."ÌÌà àà à"All€right."ÌÌà àà à"Sir?"ÌÌà àà à"Yeah?"ÌÌà àà à"Bear€along€with€me,€okay?"ÌÌà àà à"Yeah."ÌÌà àà à"What€kind€of€disturbance€was€it?"ÌÌà8 àà8 à"Well,€I€heard€shots,€there€was„„€there€was€loud€shots,Ïand€screaming€and€yelling€and€all€kinds€of€commotion."ÌÌà àà à"You€heard€shots?"ÌÌà àà à"Yeah."ÌÌà8 àà8 à"Okay.€€Okay.€€Stay€on€the€line€until€the€officer€gets€there,Ïokay?"ÌÌà8 àà8 à"Okay.€€I€called€earlier.€€I€called€the„„€911€earlier€and€IÏtalked€to€a€police€officer€at€my€house."ÌÌà8 àà8 à...ÌÌà àà à"Did€you€hear€one€shot,€sir?"ÌÌà8 àà8 à"No,€it€sounded€like€there€were€several."ÌÌà àà à...ÌÌà àà à"The€police€officer€is€here,€I€think."ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àClarksville€Police€Officer€Joseph€Papastathis€and€a€TennesseeÏhighway€patrolman€took€the€appellant€into€custody.€€The€appellant€had€blood€on€hisÏhands,€but€said€he€did€not€know€where€it€had€come€from.€€The€appellant€deniedÏhaving€a€weapon,€and€he€said€that€he€had€walked€to€the€store€to€call€police.€€TheÏappellant€spoke€in€a€"normal€conversation€tone,"€and€he€was€very€passive.Ì€à àà àÌà àà àOfficer€Eric€Gonzales€arrived€at€the€scene€of€the€shooting€at€12:13Ïa.m.€€David€Ross€and€Robert€Huff€had€been€shot.€€Billy€Hembree€was€found€dead€inÏthe€driveway.€€Misty€Harding€was€found€dead€in€the€bathtub.€€Officers€from€theÏCrime€Scene€Unit€later€collected€blood€samples,€shot€fragments,€lead€pellets,€andÏplastic€wadding.€€The€ammunition€was€for€a€.410€shotgun.€€A€search€warrant€wasÏlater€obtained€for€the€appellant's€apartment.€€A€sawed„off€.410€shotgun€wasÏrecovered€from€a€dresser€drawer;€an€empty€box€of€.410€ammunition€was€found€inÏthe€kitchen.ÌÌà àà àThomas€Heflin,€a€firearms€expert€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation€(TBI),€testified€that€the€barrel€of€the€shotgun€had€been€sawed€off€to€11Íand€1/16€inches;€the€normal€barrel€length€for€the€weapon€was€26€inches€and€theÏminimum€legal€standard€was€18€inches.€€Heflin€testified€that€the€ammunition€foundÏin€Huff's€apartment€was€consistent€with€the€box€of€shells€found€in€the€appellant'sÏapartment.€€He€also€said€that€the€ejecting€mechanism€on€the€shotgun€was€worn;€asÏa€result,€spent€shells€did€not€eject€from€the€gun€when€it€was€opened,€but€rather,€hadÏto€be€extracted€by€hand,€making€it€more€difficult€to€fire€rapidly.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Mona€Gretal€Case€Harlan,€Medical€Examiner€for€DavidsonÏCounty,€conducted€autopsies€on€Misty€Harding€and€Billy€Hembree€on€November€1,Ï1991.€€Misty€Harding,€age€17,€had€been€shot€in€the€left€chest€and€abdominal€area.€ÏThere€was€extensive€damage€to€her€heart,€right€lung,€liver,€and€esophagus.€€TheÏwound€pattern€indicated€that€she€had€been€shot€from€a€distance€of€approximatelyÏfive€feet.€€Billy€Hembree,€age€23,€had€likewise€been€shot€in€the€chest,€which€causedÏextensive€damage€to€his€heart.€€The€wound€indicated€that€the€shot€had€been€firedÏfrom€a€distance€of€five€to€six€feet.€€The€State€concluded€its€case€in€chief.€ÌÌà àà àLana€Parker,€the€appellant's€sister,€testified€on€behalf€of€the€defense.€ÏThe€appellant,€who€was€forty„one€at€the€time€of€the€trial,€had€been€hospitalizedÏnumerous€times€for€mental€illness.€€In€1985,€while€Parker€and€the€appellant€wereÏvisiting€their€mother,€the€appellant€was€nervous€and€seemed€"ill€at€ease."€€He€toldÍParker€he€wanted€her€to€drive€him€home,€but€Parker€refused€because€it€was€too€lateÏin€the€evening.€€The€appellant€left€the€room,€returned€with€an€ax,€and€struck€ParkerÏin€the€head.€€Parker€sustained€a€skull€fracture€and€was€hospitalized.€€The€appellantÏhad€a€"dead,€dull€look"€on€his€face€prior€to€striking€her€with€the€ax.€€After€theÏincident,€he€was€committed€to€the€Middle€Tennessee€Mental€Health€InstituteÏ(MTMHI)€for€several€years.€€à àà à€€ÌÌà àà àAmelia€Bozeman€testified€that€she€was€the€opinion€editor€for€theÏAustin€Peay€University€newspaper€in€October€of€1991.€€She€knew€the€appellantÏwas€a€student€at€Austin€Peay€and€considered€him€to€be€a€friend.€€They€often€hadÏinteresting€conversations;€in€her€opinion,€the€appellant€was€intelligent€and€fun€toÏtalk€with.€€In€late€summer€of€1991,€the€appellant€told€Bozeman€he€was€concernedÏthat€his€neighbor,€a€male,€was€trying€to€rape€him.€€Bozeman€said€that€the€appellantÏappeared€to€be€afraid.€€In€October€of€1991,€the€appellant€wrote€the€letter€to€theÏeditor€regarding€his€views€of€homosexual€men.ÌÌà àà àWilliam€Cannady€owned€the€apartments€that€Huff€and€the€appellantÏlived€in.€€In€the€summer€of€1991,€the€appellant€complained€to€him€about€Robert€HuffÏputting€notes€under€his€door€that€made€reference€to€homosexual€acts.€€TheÏappellant€was€"not€happy"€about€the€situation.€€Debra€Weeks,€who€lived€in€anÍapartment€above€Huff's,€was€also€aware€of€the€"aggravation"€between€the€appellantÏand€Huff.€€On€the€night€of€the€offenses,€she€believed€she€heard€close€to€tenÏgunshots.ÌÌà àà àRebecca€Smith,€a€licensed€clinical€social€worker€with€the€ForensicÏServices€Division€of€MTMHI,€testified€that€the€appellant€had€been€committedÏnumerous€times€from€1972€to€1991.€€In€December€of€1972,€the€appellant€wasÏevaluated€relative€to€criminal€charges€for€desecration€of€a€flag.€€The€appellantÏacknowledged€using€LSD,€mescaline,€peyote,€and€marijuana.€€He€was€diagnosedÏwith€acute€schizophrenia.€€In€1978,€the€appellant€was€evaluated€following€a€chargeÏof€assault€with€intent€to€commit€murder.€€He€was€not€considered€psychotic,€but€wasÏdiagnosed€with€a€paranoid€personality€disorder.€€He€was€showing€signs€ofÏdelusions,€and€he€expressed€fear€of€homosexuals.€€He€was€found€competent€toÏstand€trial,€and€a€defense€of€insanity€to€the€criminal€charge€was€not€supported€byÏMTMHI€officials.€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€1985,€the€appellant€was€evaluated€and€eventually€committed€inÏconnection€with€his€attack€on€his€sister.€€He€had€auditory€hallucinations€involvingÏrapes€and€homosexuals.€€He€was€delusional,€and€he€feared€that€members€ofÏminority€groups,€particularly€homosexuals,€were€"out€to€get€him."€€The€appellantÍwas€diagnosed€with€paranoid€schizophrenia€and€treated€with€several€anti„psychotic€medications.€€A€defense€of€insanity€for€the€attack€upon€his€sister€wasÏsupported€by€MTMHI.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€November€of€1991,€the€appellant€was€evaluated€for€the€offenses€inÏquestion.€€The€appellant's€diagnosis€remained€paranoid€schizophrenic;€heÏexpressed€fear€of€homosexuals€and€homosexual€assaults,€and€he€consideredÏhimself€to€be€weak€and€deformed.€€The€appellant€was€found€competent€to€standÏtrial€but€committable.€€The€trial€court€signed€an€order€to€this€effect.€€Although€notÏexpressing€an€opinion€on€the€appellant's€mental€state€at€the€time€of€the€offenses,ÏSmith€considered€it€significant€that€Robert€Huff€was€dressed€as€a€woman€andÏpossibly€acting€in€a€hostile€manner.€€She€could€not€recall€whether€she€was€awareÏof€this€information€when€the€evaluation€team€met€in€December€of€1991.ÌÌà àà àWilliam€H.€Tragle,€a€psychiatrist€at€MTMHI,€became€involved€with€theÏappellant's€case€in€January€of€1992.€€The€appellant€was€being€treated€for€chronicÏparanoid€schizophrenia;€the€records€showed€that€he€had€been€receiving€50Ïmilligrams€of€haloperidol€every€four€weeks€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€Dr.€TragleÏlabeled€this€a€"low€to€moderate"€dosage,€and€eventually€doubled€the€dosage€to€100Ïmilligrams€in€March€of€1992€because€he€was€dissatisfied€with€the€appellant'sÍprogress.€€Tragle€testified€that€haloperidol€is€commonly€used€to€treat€paranoidÏschizophrenics€because€it€controls€delusional€thinking€and€hallucinations.€€TragleÏnoted€that€the€appellant€had€false€beliefs€which€centered€on€homosexuality€andÏthat€he€was€easily€threatened.€€Dr.€Tragle€did€not€express€an€opinion€on€the€issueÏof€insanity.ÌÌà àà àJonathan€Lipman,€a€Ph.D.€in€neuropharmacology,€also€testified€for€theÏdefense.€€Lipman€was€Chief€of€Pharmacology€for€Molecular€Geriatrics€in€Illinois,€aÏcompany€that€conducts€drug€discovery€and€research,€and€a€former€professor€in€theÏDepartment€of€Medicine€at€Vanderbilt€University€in€Nashville.€€Lipman€discussedÏthe€effects€of€haloperidol€on€paranoid€schizophrenics,€and€he€said€that€theÏtreatment€helps€to€control€delusional€fears€and€hallucinations.€€The€side€effects€ofÏhaloperidol€include€drowsiness€and€depression.€€ÌÌà àà àLipman€testified€that€large€doses€of€caffeine€and€ephedrine€produceÏagitation€and€nervousness€and€exacerbate€the€paranoid€psychosis€of€a€paranoidÏschizophrenic.€€Caffeine€may€also€cause€excretion€of€haloperidol.€€Lipman€testifiedÏthat€the€amount€of€drugs€or€chemicals€in€a€person's€system€may€be€determined€byÏanalyzing€that€person's€hair.€€Moreover,€by€determining€the€growth€rate€of€aÏperson's€hair,€the€amount€of€drugs€can€be€measured€for€a€given€time€period.ÌÌà àà àLipman€became€involved€in€this€case€in€January€of€1992.€€ByÏinterviewing€the€appellant€and€others,€he€learned€that€the€appellant€was€receivingÏinjections€of€haloperidol€and€also€ingesting€large€amounts€of€caffeine€andÏephedrine€(a€stimulant).€€Lipman€conducted€a€forty„two€day€study€of€the€appellant'sÏhair€growth€rate,€and€sent€a€sample€of€the€hair€to€National€Medical€Services€inÏWillow€Grove,€Pennsylvania.€€The€lab€measured€the€amount€of€haloperidol€andÏother€drugs€in€the€appellant's€hair€for€those€segments€corresponding€to€October€ofÏ1991,€and€furnished€a€report€of€its€findings.€€Lipman€concluded€that€on€October€31,Ï1991,€the€appellant€had€not€received€a€haloperidol€treatment€for€twenty„five€days.€ÏAs€the€appellant€was€on€twenty„eight€day€cycles,€he€was€near€the€end€of€a€cycle.€ÏThe€amount€of€haloperidol€in€the€appellant's€system€was€"massively€low€at€the€timeÏof€the€offense."× ƒ; ××  ×€€The€tests€also€revealed€that€the€dosage€of€haloperidol€wasÏdoubled€in€March€of€1992.€€ÌÌà àà àChristopher€Johnson€testified€in€the€State's€rebuttal€case.€€He€was€atÏthe€party€when€the€police€investigated€the€complaint€of€loud€music.€€The€appellantÏmade€a€remark€about€sexual€preferences.€€Johnson€said€that€they€needed€toÍ"straighten€out€the€problem"€while€the€police€officer€was€still€there.€€When€the€policeÏleft,€the€appellant€said€that€he€would€be€"back€in€a€minute."€€Johnson€said€toÏsomeone,€"You'd€better€watch;€that€guy€is€liable€to€have€a€gun."€€Robert€HuffÏbecame€angry€and€said€he€had€"had€enough"€and€was€going€"to€take€care€of"€theÏsituation.€€When€Huff€opened€the€door,€there€was€a€shotgun€blast.€€This€occurredÏabout€three€minutes€after€the€appellant€said€he€would€be€"back€in€a€minute."ÌÌà àà àDr.€Samuel€Craddock,€a€clinical€psychologist€at€MTMHI,€testified€thatÏhe€€evaluated€the€appellant€in€November€of€1991.€€The€appellant's€IQ€was€aboveÏaverage.€€Personality€testing€revealed€a€paranoid€schizophrenic€personality.€ÏScreening€tests€for€organic€impairments€were€negative.€€In€December,€theÏevaluation€team€postponed€making€a€determination€on€the€appellant's€sanity€untilÏRebecca€Smith€could€contact€Debra€Weeks€and€Ernestine€Keith.€€CraddockÏbelieved€that€they€did€not€have€all€the€information€to€make€a€decision€"with€a€highÏlevel€of€competence€or€assurance."€€The€evaluation€team€met€again€in€April€ofÏ1992,€which€was€after€Smith€contacted€the€remaining€witnesses.× ƒ< ××  ×€€ÌÌà àà àCraddock€testified€that€the€appellant€had€a€mental€illness€of€paranoidÏschizophrenia€at€the€time€of€the€offense€and€was€being€treated€with€haloperidol.€ÏThere€were€several€signs€that€the€haloperidol€was€working€well.€€The€appellant€hadÏmade€no€complaints€to€Harriet€Cohn€Mental€Health€Center€where€he€received€hisÏmedication.€€In€September€or€October€of€1991,€he€had€requested€a€lower€dosage€ofÏhaloperidol.€€The€records€from€Harriet€Cohn€did€not€reflect€any€inappropriateÏconduct€or€emotions€expressed€by€the€appellant.€€The€appellant€lived€alone,Ïattended€college,€and€had€not€been€a€disturbance€to€the€community.€€ÌÌà àà àCraddock€opined€that€the€appellant€was€not€legally€insane€at€the€timeÏof€the€crimes:€he€had€the€substantial€capacity€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€hisÏactions€and€to€conform€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.€€Craddock'sÏconclusion€with€regard€to€the€appellant's€capacity€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€ofÏhis€actions€was€based€on€the€appellant's€comments€about€the€offense,€whichÏindicated€that€he€was€not€suffering€from€hallucinations,€delusions,€or€grossÏmisperceptions€of€reality.€€The€appellant€did€not€indicate€that€he€was€acting€in€selfÏdefense€or€under€a€"command€delusion"€to€commit€the€crimes.€€To€the€contrary,€theÏappellant€indicated€that€he€wanted€to€frighten€the€individuals€at€the€party.€€WithÏregard€to€the€appellant's€ability€to€conform€his€conduct,€Craddock€noted€theÏelements€of€planning:€€the€appellant€said€that€he€"would€be€back,"€secured€a€gun,Ípursued€the€victims,€and€acted€as€the€aggressor.€€In€sum,€the€appellant€"was€able€toÏcarry€out€a€sequence€of€actions€toward€a€purpose€or€goal."€€His€actions€"were€notÏrandom€actions€that€had€no€rational€purpose."€ÌÌà àà àCraddock€said€that€the€appellant's€1985€adjudication€of€insanity€hadÏno€bearing€on€his€determination;€a€person's€mental€state€varies€over€time€and€withÏregard€to€particular€incidents.€€In€the€appellant's€case,€delusions€were€a€slowÏprocess€occurring€on€and€off€for€a€period€of€years.€€Craddock€conceded€that€heÏ"could€see€a€basis"€for€the€defense€of€insanity€in€December€of€1991;€after€obtainingÏadditional€witness€statements€and€information,€Craddock€concluded€otherwise€inÏApril€of€1992.€€He€also€conceded€that€it€was€significant€that€Robert€Huff€opened€theÏdoor€and€had€"a€fighting€demeanor"€because€it€lent€credibility€to€the€appellant'sÏversion€of€the€offenses.€€Similarly,€given€the€nature€of€the€appellant's€paranoia,€theÏfact€that€Huff€was€dressed€as€a€woman€would€have€caused€"anguish"€to€theÏappellant.€€Neither€of€these€factors,€however,€changed€Craddock's€opinion€that€theÏappellant€was€sane€at€the€time€he€committed€the€offenses.€€Craddock€saw€aÏ"common€theme"€in€the€appellant's€history:€€whenever€he€"is€challenged€orÏconfronted€and€demeaned€in€some€way...he€secures€a€weapon€and€assaults€anÏindividual."ÌÌà àà àDr.€A.K.M.€Fakhruddin,€a€psychiatrist€at€MTMHI,€also€opined€that€theÏappellant€was€legally€sane€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€He€agreed€that€the€appellantÏwas€a€chronic€paranoid€schizophrenic,€yet€said€that€haloperidol€injections€kept€theÏappellant's€delusions€"under€fairly€good€control."€€The€appellant's€last€injectionÏbefore€the€offenses€was€on€October€9,€1991.€€Records€from€the€Harriet€Cohn€MentalÏHealth€Center€indicated€that€the€appellant€was€feeling€well€and€attending€college.€ÏThe€appellant€also€had€asked€for€a€lower€dose€of€medication.ÌÌà àà àFakhruddin€concluded€that€the€appellant's€mental€illness€did€notÏprevent€him€from€knowing€the€wrongfulness€of€his€actions€on€October€31,€1991,€norÏdid€it€render€him€incapable€of€controlling€his€conduct.€€The€appellant's€words€andÏactions€showed€that€he€was€aware€the€shootings€and€killings€were€wrong;€heÏcalled€the€police€immediately€after€the€crimes.€€Many€of€the€witnesses€alsoÏcommented€on€the€appellant's€"calm€and€rational"€demeanor€right€after€theÏoffenses.€€In€December€of€1991,€the€decision€about€the€appellant's€mental€stateÏwas€deferred.€€After€getting€more€information€from€other€witnesses,€FakhruddinÏdetermined€that€the€insanity€defense€could€not€be€supported.€€ÌÌà àà àKarl€Selavka,€a€Ph.D.€in€forensic€analytic€chemistry€and€Director€ofÏForensic€Operations€for€National€Medical€Services,€also€testified€for€the€State.€€HeÍdescribed€the€methods€for€testing€hair€samples€and€discussed€the€factors€that€mayÏaffect€the€rate€of€one's€hair€growth€such€as€age,€gender,€weather,€and€diet.€ÏSelavka's€lab€tested€the€hair€samples€sent€by€Dr.€Lipman.€€The€samples,€and€theÏappellant's€hair€growth€rate,€were€based€on€averages€that€necessarily€had€someÏvariability.€€Selavka€said€that€at€a€ninety„five€per€cent€statistical€level€of€confidence,Ïthere€was€a€twenty„two€per€cent€variance.€€This,€in€turn,€was€a€variance€of€weeks€orÏmonths€as€the€sample€related€to€specific€periods€of€time.€€Selavka€noted€that€theÏresults€were€negative€for€ephedrine;€the€testing€included€standards€to€prevent€falseÏnegative€readings.ÌÌà@ àò òIÌó óà àà àThe€appellant€claims€that€the€State€failed€to€prove€that€he€was€sane€atÏthe€time€of€the€offenses.€€When€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence,€the€standard€for€review€by€an€appellate€court€is€whether,€afterÏconsidering€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rationalÏtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€all€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€318„19€(1979);€òòState€v.ÏSmithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€568„69€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€115€S.Ct.€417,€130ÏL.Ed.2d€333€(1994);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€to€all€reasonable€inferences€that€mayÍbe€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€568„69.ÌÌà àà àThe€central€issue€in€this€case€was€the€appellant's€mental€state€at€theÏtime€he€committed€these€crimes.€€Under€the€law€controlling€this€case,€insanity€wasÏan€absolute€defense€to€a€crime€"if€at€the€time€of€such€conduct,€as€a€result€of€mentalÏdisease€or€defect,€the€person€lacked€substantial€capacity€either€to€appreciate€theÏwrongfulness€of€the€person's€conduct€or€to€conform€that€conduct€to€theÏrequirements€of€the€law."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„11„501(a)(1991);€òòseeóó€òòGraham€v.ÏStateóó,€547€S.W.2d€531,€543„44€(Tenn.€1977).× ƒ= ××  ×€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€law€presumes€the€sanity€of€one€accused€of€a€crime.€€òòState€v.ÏOverbayóó,€874€S.W.2d€645,€650€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòBrooks€v.€Stateóó,€489ÏS.W.2d€70,€72€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972).€€If€the€evidence€raises€a€reasonable€doubtÏas€to€the€accused's€sanity,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€State€to€establish€the€accused'sÏsanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€890€S.W.2d€436€(Tenn.Ï1994);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Sparksóó,€891€S.W.2d€607€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Grahamóó,€547ÍS.W.2d€at€544;€òòState€v.€Overbayóó,€874€S.W.2d€at€650.€€Sanity€thus€becomes€anÏelement€of€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€890€S.W.2d€at€440.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€order€to€prove€sanity,€the€State€must€prove€either:€(a)€the€defendantÏwas€not€suffering€from€a€mental€illness€at€the€time€of€the€offense€or€(b)€the€illnessÏdid€not€prevent€the€defendant€from€knowing€the€wrongfulness€of€his€act€and€did€notÏrender€the€defendant€substantially€incapable€of€conforming€his€conduct€to€theÏrequirements€of€the€law.€€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€890€S.W.2d€at€440;€òòGraham€v.€Stateóó,Ï547€S.W.2d€at€544.€€The€State€may€establish€sanity€"by€the€use€of€expert€testimony,Ïlay€testimony,€or€by€showing€the€defendant's€behavior€prior€to,€during,€or€after€theÏcommission€of€the€crime€was€consistent€with€sanity€and€inconsistent€with€insanity."€ÏòòEdwards€v.€Stateóó,€540€S.W.2d€641,€646€(Tenn.€1976),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€429€U.S.€1061Ï(1977).ÌÌà àà àThe€evidence€was€sufficient€for€the€jury€to€conclude€that€the€appellantÏwas€legally€sane€at€the€time€of€the€crimes.€€The€clinical€psychologist€andÏpsychiatrist€at€MTMHI€determined€that€the€appellant's€paranoid€schizophrenia€didÏnot€prevent€him€from€appreciating€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€or€fromÏconforming€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.€€Both€experts€noted€thatÏwhile€treated€with€haloperidol,€the€appellant€had€been€living€independently€andÍattending€college.€€He€had€not€been€a€disturbance€to€the€community,€did€notÏappear€to€be€exhibiting€inappropriate€emotions€or€behavior,€and€did€not€appearÏsocially€withdrawn.ÌÌà àà àBoth€experts€testified€that€the€appellant's€conduct€before€and€after€theÏcrimes€supported€their€opinions.€€The€appellant€did€not€complain€of€"command"Ïdelusions€or€feelings€of€self€defense€when€he€committed€the€crimes.€€Rather,€heÏexpressed€a€desire€to€"go€after"€or€"scare"€the€victims.€€His€actions€also€revealedÏelements€of€planning:€he€said€he€would€"be€back"€when€initially€leaving€the€scene;Ïhe€went€to€his€apartment€to€get€his€shotgun€and€ammunition;€and€his€actions€wereÏnot€sudden€or€random.€€Finally,€the€appellant€called€the€police€on€his€own,€whichÏsuggested€that€he€appreciated€the€wrongfulness€of€the€shootings.ÌÌà àà àNonetheless,€the€appellant€stressed€his€history€of€mental€illness€andÏargued€that€his€actions,€while€possibly€consistent€with€sanity,€were€not€inconsistentÏwith€insanity.€The€jury€heard€that€the€appellant€had€been€diagnosed€with€paranoidÏschizophrenia€as€early€as€1972,€and€that€he€had€been€committed€on€severalÏoccasions.€€The€jury€also€heard€detailed€testimony€that€there€was€a€low€level€ofÏhaloperidol€in€the€appellant's€system€at€the€time€of€the€crimes,€which€made€himÏmore€susceptible€to€his€paranoid€ideations€and€delusions.€€The€jury€also€heardÍabout€the€appellant's€delusions€regarding€homosexuals€and€the€prior€incidentsÏinvolving€Robert€Huff.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€State's€rebuttal€proof€addressed€these€points.€€There€was€expertÏtestimony€of€sanity,€lay€testimony€that€the€appellant€appeared€"calm€and€rational,"Ïand€descriptions€of€his€conduct€before,€during,€and€after€the€crimes.€€As€noted,€theÏState€may€prove€sanity€with€any€of€these€forms€of€proof.€€Thus,€the€jury€could€haveÏrationally€found€from€the€State's€evidence€that€the€appellant€was€legally€sane€at€theÏtime€he€committed€the€crimes.€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€also€claims€that€the€jury€verdicts€were€inconsistentÏbecause€the€appellant€was€convicted€of€attempted€òòsecondóó€degree€murder€of€RobertÏHuff€but€attempted€first€degree€murder€and€first€degree€murder€of€David€Ross,€MistyÏHarding,€and€Billy€Hembree.€€In€òòWiggins€v.€Stateóó,€498€S.W.2d€92,€93€(Tenn.1973),Ïour€supreme€court€said€that€seemingly€inconsistent€jury€verdicts€stemming€from€aÏmulti„count€indictment€do€not€warrant€speculation€about€the€jury's€reasoningÏprovided€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€the€verdicts.€€Thus,€we€will€evaluateÏthe€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€under€the€prevailing€standards€ofÏappellate€review.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€of€these€offenses,€first€degree€murder€was€defined€as€"anÏintentional,€premeditated,€and€deliberate€killing€of€another...."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð39„13„202(a)(1)(1991).× ƒ> ××  ×€€A€deliberate€act€was€"one€performed€with€a€coolÏpurpose,"€and€a€premeditated€act€was€"one€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€andÏjudgment."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„201(b)(1)&€(2)(1991).€€Second€degreeÏmurder€was€"a€knowing€killing€of€another."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„210Ï(a)(1)(1991).€€The€jury€was€also€instructed€as€to€how€an€attempted€crime€isÏcommitted.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„12„101(a)(1)„(3)(1991).ÌÌà àà àThe€evidence€showed€that€the€appellant€had€prior€altercations€withÏRobert€Huff€and€was€upset€about€the€loud€music€from€Huff's€party€on€the€night€of€theÏcrimes.€€After€the€police€left€the€scene,€the€appellant€said,€"I'll€be€back."€€He€went€toÏhis€apartment€and€retrieved€a€single€shot,€sawed€off€shotgun€and€ammunition.€€HeÏshot€Robert€Huff€in€the€chest,€and€made€his€way€through€the€home€firing€moreÏshots.€€He€shot€David€Ross€in€the€abdomen,€reloaded€the€weapon,€and€shot€MistyÏHarding€in€the€chest€from€approximately€five€feet€away.€€He€left€the€house,€andÏagain€reloaded€the€weapon.€€He€shot€Billy€Hembree€in€the€chest€from€a€distance€ofÏfive€to€six€feet.€€The€appellant€then€reloaded€the€shotgun€and€fired€several€shots€atÍfour€occupants€of€Deanna€Shepherd's€car.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€jury€rationally€found€from€the€evidence€that€the€appellantÏattempted€a€knowing€killing€of€Huff,€attempted€an€intentional,€premeditated€andÏdeliberate€killing€of€Ross,€committed€the€intentional,€premeditated€and€deliberateÏkillings€of€Misty€Harding€and€Billy€Hembree,€and€committed€aggravated€assaultÏwith€a€deadly€weapon€against€the€four€occupants€of€the€car.€€The€evidence€wasÏsufficient€to€support€the€offenses;€thus,€we€will€not€speculate€as€to€why€the€juryÏconvicted€the€appellant€of€attempting€to€commit€second€degree€murder€of€Huff.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€jury€rejected€the€insanityÏdefense€only€because€it€feared€the€legal€consequences€of€acquitting€him€on€thatÏbasis.€€The€appellant€argues€that€"it€is€a€commonly€held€view"€that€the€mental€healthÏsystem€is€incapable€of€protecting€the€public€from€the€dangerously€mentally€ill.€€HeÏcites€òòState€v.€Overbayóó,€òòsupraóó,€in€which€the€court€mentioned€a€newspaper€articleÏand€a€study€that€addressed€the€public's€misconceptions€of€an€insanity€defense€andÏits€consequences.€€òòIdóó.€at€651,€n.€2.ÌÌà àà àThere€is€no€evidence€to€support€the€appellant's€claim€in€this€case.€ÏThe€jury€heard€from€two€mental€health€experts€who€opined€that€the€appellant€wasÍlegally€sane.€€Several€other€witnesses€described€the€appellant's€calm€demeanorÏimmediately€before,€during,€and€after€the€offense.€€Although€David€Ross€describedÏthe€appellant€acting€like€a€"wild€person,"€no€other€lay€or€expert€witness€testified€thatÏthe€appellant€appeared€to€be€insane€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€By€contrast,€theÏjury€in€òòOverbayóó€rejected€the€insanity€defense€even€though€both€experts€hadÏtestified€that€the€defendant€was€insane,€and€the€remaining€proof€also€failed€to€proveÏsanity.€€It€was€in€òòthatóóòò€óócontext€that€the€court€cited€the€study€and€noted€that€this€"type€ofÏissue€is€proving€to€be€increasingly€difficult€for€our€juries."€€òòIdóó.€at€651.€€This€case€is€farÏdifferent.€€The€appellant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€ground.€ÌÌà@ àò òIIó ó€ò ò&€IIIó óÌà àà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€(a)€denying€hisÏrequest€to€pursue€his€motions€for€support€services€in€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€proceeding€andÏ(b)€denying€his€motion€for€a€psychiatrist.€€A€written€motion,€filed€under€seal€onÏFebruary€7,€1992,€requested€funds€for€a€mitigation€specialist,€a€psychiatrist,€and€aÏneuropharmacologist.€€The€motion€relied€upon€òòAke€v.€Oklahomaóó,€470€U.S.€68,€70,Ï105€S.Ct.€1087,€1090€(1985),€a€capital€case€in€which€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€held€that€due€process€requires€the€appointment€of€a€state€funded€psychiatristÏ"when€[a€defendant's]€sanity€at€the€time€of€the€offense€is€seriously€in€question."€€ÌÌà àà àOn€March€31,€1992,€argument€was€heard€on€the€request€for€an€òòexóóÏòòparteóóproceeding.€€The€State€argued€that€there€was€no€such€authority€in€a€non„capital€case.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„14„207(b).€€However,€since€the€State€hadÏnot€yet€elected€whether€it€would€seek€the€death€penalty,€the€trial€judge€took€theÏmotion€under€advisement.€€On€April€28,€1992,€the€trial€court€filed€a€written€orderÏstating€that€it€would€hear€the€motions€òòexóó€òòparteóó€if€the€State€filed€notice€to€seek€theÏdeath€penalty,€and€hear€the€motions€in€open€court€if€the€death€penalty€was€notÏsought.€€On€May€6,€1992,€the€State€filed€notice€that€it€would€òònotóó€seek€the€deathÏpenalty€for€the€crimes.€€The€appellant€thereafter€refiled€his€motions€for€supportÏservices€in€open€court,€and€a€hearing€was€held€on€the€motions€on€August€26,€1992.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€hearing,€Dr.€Jonathan€Lipman€testified€about€the€field€ofÏneuropharmacology,€which€is€the€study€of€"the€effect€of€drugs€on€behavior€and€onÏmental€disorders€and€defects."€€He€related€his€education€and€professionalÏexperience,€which€included€a€Ph.D.€and€board€certification€in€the€field.€€He€said€thatÏhe€has€testified€as€an€expert€in€civil€and€criminal€cases€in€approximately€150€cases.€ÏHe€discussed€the€effects€of€haloperidol€on€a€person€with€paranoid€schizophrenia,Ïand€the€studies€that€could€be€performed€to€analyze€the€amount€of€haloperidol€orÏother€drugs€in€the€appellant's€system€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€€€ÌÌà àà àThere€was€no€testimony€with€regard€to€the€need€for€a€psychiatrist;Ïinstead,€counsel€said€that€he€was€"standing€on€[the]€showing€of€need€as€made€inÏthe€òòAkeóó€motion€by€way€of€affidavit."€€Counsel€also€said€that€the€mitigation€specialistÏand€psychiatrist€were€"not€as€critical"€as€the€neuropharmacologist.€€In€sum,€counselÏsaid€he€could€not€"try€this€case€without€Dr.€Lipman."ÌÌà àà àThe€motion€requesting€a€psychiatrist€that€had€been€filed€under€seal€onÏFebruary€7,€1992,€included€documentation€of€the€appellant's€prior€mental€healthÏevaluations€and€diagnoses€from€1972€through€1985.€€In€1972,€the€appellant€wasÏevaluated€in€connection€for€a€criminal€charge€of€flag€desecration.€€He€was€noted€toÏbe€a€drug€user€and€diagnosed€with€acute€schizophrenia.€€In€1978,€the€appellantÏwas€evaluated€after€being€charged€with€assault€with€attempt€to€commit€murder.€€HeÏwas€diagnosed€with€a€paranoid€personality€disorder€but€found€legally€sane€at€theÏtime€of€that€offense.€€In€1985,€the€appellant€was€evaluated€relative€to€his€attackÏupon€his€sister.€€He€was€again€diagnosed€as€a€paranoid€schizophrenic,€andÏofficials€at€MTMHI€determined€that€he€met€the€legal€standard€for€insanity.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€counsel's€affidavit€asserted€that€sanity€was€the€centralÏissue€in€the€case,€that€mental€health€experts€had€historically€reached€differentÏopinions€with€regard€to€the€appellant's€mental€state,€and€that€the€defense€could€notÍafford€to€wait€for€the€MTMHI€professionals€to€render€an€opinion.€€Finally,€counselÏsaid:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àFor€the€above€listed€reasons€and€given€the€fact€that€theÏopinions€of€the€State€experts€are€not€protected€byÏattorney„client€privilege,€or€the€psychiatrist„patientÏprivilege,...it€is€absolutely€essential€to€obtain€the€servicesÏof€its€own€psychiatric€or€psychological€expert.€€Given€theÏpresent€climate€of€State€funding,€it€is€felt€to€beÏappropriate€that€I€be€able€to€approach€potential€expertsÏwith€the€assurance€that€I€at€least€have€court€approval€toÏhave€a€psychiatric€expert....I€will€submit€to€the€court€theÏname€and€curriculum€vitae€of€my€recommended€expertÏto€the€Court€along€with€a€detail[ing]€of€charges€andÏreimbursable€expenses....ÌÌÓÓNo€submission€to€the€court€detailing€a€specific€expert€and€costs€was€ever€filed.€ÏWhen€the€motion€was€refiled€on€June€12,€1992,€it€alleged:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àAs€to€the€services€of€a€defense€psychologist,€theseÏservices€are€absolutely€essential€for€the€formulation€andÏpresentation€of€an€insanity€defense€in€this€case.€€As€ofÏthe€filing€of€this€motion,€counsel...is€still€evaluatingÏpossible€psychiatrists€to€consult€with€concerning€thisÏmatter.€€Counsel's€first€choice€will€be€made€known€to€theÏcourt€and€the€District€Attorney€prior€to€the€hearing€on€thisÏcause€and€said€expert€will€be€made€available€for€theÏcourt's€inquiry€either€by€telephone€deposition€orÏpresence€at€a€hearing....ÌÌÓÓÌAs€noted,€no€psychiatrists€testified€at€the€hearing.€€Following€the€hearing,€the€courtÏdenied€the€requests€for€a€mitigation€specialist€and€psychiatrist€as€such€expertsÍ"were€not€required€for€[the€appellant]€to€be€afforded€due€process."€€The€courtÏgranted€the€appointment€of€Dr.€Lipman.€€The€court€found€that€theÏneuropharmacologist's€testimony€had€shown€that€his€"area€of€expertise€[was]Ïuniquely€appropriate€in€this€case."€€ÌÌÌà@ àò òAó óÌà àà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€proceedings€on€his€òòAkeóó€motions€shouldÏhave€been€òòexóó€òòparteóó,€particularly€since€the€State€delayed€its€election€on€whether€itÏwould€seek€the€death€penalty.€€The€State€maintains€that€the€trial€court€did€not€haveÏthe€authority€to€conduct€such€a€hearing.€€The€relevant€statute€provided:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIn€capital€cases€where€the€defendant€has€been€found€toÏbe€indigent€by€the€court€of€record€having€jurisdiction€ofÏthe€case,€such€court€in€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€hearing€may€in€itsÏdiscretion€determine€that€investigative€or€expert€servicesÏor€other€similar€services€are€necessary€to€ensure€that€theÏconstitutional€rights€of€the€defendant€are€properlyÏprotected.€€If€such€determination€is€made,€the€court€mayÏgrant€prior€authorization€for€these€necessary€services€inÏa€reasonable€amount€to€be€determined€by€the€court.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„14„207(b)(1995€Supp.).€€The€statute,€and€its€òòexóó€òòparteóóÏprovision,€was€expressly€limited€to€capital€cases.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Aucoinóó,€756€S.W.2dÏ705,€713€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€489€U.S.€1084€(1989);€òòState€v.ÍPhillipsóó,€728€S.W.2d€21,€25€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€Here€the€trial€court's€denial€ofÏan€òòexóó€òòparteóó€hearing€was€on€this€basis.ÌÌà àà àHowever,€the€supreme€court€has€recently€addressed€òòexóó€òòparteóóÏrequests€for€psychiatric€assistance€in€non„capital€cases€in€òòState€v.€Joseph€Barnettóó,Ï909€S.W.2d€423€(Tenn.€1995).€€After€discussing€òòAke€v.€Oklahomaóó,€òòsupraóó,€theÏòòBarnettóó€court€said€that€the€"due€process€principle€of€fundamental€fairness€applies€toÏall€criminal€prosecutions,€and€does€not€rest€upon€the€severity€of€the€sanction€soughtÏor€imposed."€€òòIdóó.at€428;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Edwardsóó,€868€S.W.2d€682,€697€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993)("constitutional€due€process...applies€whether€the€death€penalty€isÏsought€or€not.").€€The€court€then€concluded€that€the€principles€of€òòAkeóó€are€not€limitedÏto€capital€cases,€at€least€with€respect€to€the€assistance€of€psychiatric€experts.€ÏòòBarnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€431.ÌÌà àà àThe€court€then€addressed€"whether€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€hearing€is€authorizedÏor€required€by€the€federal€constitution€in€the€context€of€requests€by€indigents€forÏstate„funded€psychiatric€expert€assistance."€€òòBarnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€428.€€Again,€theÏcourt's€holding€was€based€on€òòAkeóó;€€once€a€defendant€makes€"an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€thresholdÏshowing€to€the€trial€court€that€his€sanity€is€likely€to€be€a€significant€factor€in€hisÏdefense,€the€need€for€the€assistance€of€a€psychiatrist€is€readily€apparent."€€470€U.S.Íat€83,€105€S.Ct.€at€1097.€€The€court€explained:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€logic€of€requiring€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€hearing€under€suchÏcircumstances€is€apparent.€€Indigent€defendants€whoÏmust€seek€state„funding€to€hire€a€psychiatric€expertÏshould€not€be€required€to€reveal€their€theory€of€defenseÏwhen€their€more€affluent€counterparts,€with€funds€to€hireÏexperts,€are€not€required€to€reveal€their€theory€ofÏdefense,€or€the€identity€of€experts€who€are€consulted,€butÏwho€may€not,€or€do€not,€testify€at€trial.ÌÌÓÓòòBarnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€429.€€The€court€concluded€that€"at€least€in€the€context€of€aÏrequest€for€a€psychiatric€expert,€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€hearing€is€required"€under€the€federalÏconstitution.€€òòIdóó.€at€430.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€court€discussed€the€procedural€aspects€to€its€holding.€€To€obtainÏan€òòexóó€òòparteóó€hearing,€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€file€a€written,€sealed€motionÏthat€"alleges€particular€facts€and€circumstances€that€raise€the€question€of€theÏdefendant's€sanity."€€òòIdóó.€at€429„30.€€A€"bare€allegation€that€sanity€will€be€a€significantÏfactor€at€trial€is€not€sufficient."€€òòIdóó.€at€430.€€Rather,€the€motion€should€conform€toÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€13€ðð(2)(B)(10).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€same€procedural€requirements€were€discussed€in€òòOwens€v.ÏStateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923€(Tenn.€1995),€in€which€the€supreme€court€applied€the€òòexóóÍòòparteóó€requirement€to€post„conviction€capital€cases.× ƒ? ××  ×€€The€court€held€that,€in€additionÏto€alleging€why€state„funded€services€are€necessary€to€ensure€due€process€isÏafforded€under€the€particular€facts€of€a€case,€a€motion€for€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€hearing€mustÏalso€include€the€following:€"(a)€the€name€of€the€proposed€expert€or€service;€(b)€how,Ïwhen€and€where€the€examination€is€to€be€conducted€or€the€services€are€to€beÏperformed;€(c)€the€cost€of€the€evaluation€and€report€thereof;€and€(d)€the€cost€of€anyÏother€necessary€services,€such€as€court€appearances."€€òòIdóó.€at€928.€€This€procedureÏis€adopted€from€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€13€ðð(2)(B)(10)„„€the€same€ruleÏcited€in€òòBarnettóó.€€Ì€Ìà àà àObviously,€neither€òòOwensóó€nor€òòBarnettóó€had€been€decided€when€theÏtrial€court€ruled€upon€the€appellant's€request€for€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€hearing.€€UnderÏòòBarnettóó,€it€is€now€clear€that€due€process€requires€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€hearing€for€psychiatricÏassistance€upon€a€sufficient€threshold€showing.€€The€court€did€not,€however,Ïdiscuss€the€ramifications€of€the€denial€of€such€a€hearing€in€òòBarnettóó.€€Since€theÏconviction€was€affirmed,€the€denial€was€apparently€harmless€error.€€ÌÌà àà àTennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€13€clearly€was€in€effect€at€the€time€ofÍthis€case.€€Whether€the€appellant€made€a€sufficient€showing€under€the€rule€is€aÏclose€question.€€The€appellant's€history€of€mental€illness€and€the€nature€of€theÏcrimes€indicated€that€his€mental€state€would€be€a€potential€issue.€€The€motion€didÏnot,€however,€include€many€of€the€threshold€factors€set€forth€in€òòBarnettóó,€òòOwensóó,€andÏRule€13.€€It€did€not€allege€with€particularity€the€facts€and€circumstances€making€aÏhearing€necessary€with€respect€to€the€charged€crimes.€€It€did€not€disclose€the€nameÏor€identity€of€proposed€experts€the€appellant€intended€to€consult€or€whether€suchÏexperts€would€be€called€to€testify.€€It€also€did€not€disclose€the€estimated€costsÏassociated€with€such€services.€€The€motion€revealed€a€possible€defense€of€insanityÏbut€it€did€not€discuss€strategic€decisions,€defense€tactics,€or€any€other€matters€thatÏthe€court€stressed€in€òòBarnettóó.€€òòIdóó.€at€429.€€As€a€result,€we€conclude€that€the€appellantÏis€not€entitled€to€relief€based€on€the€denial€of€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€hearing.ÌÌà@ àò òBÌó óà àà àWe€now€address€the€question€of€whether,€apart€from€the€request€forÏan€òòexóó€òòparteóó€hearing,€the€appellant€made€a€sufficient€showing€for€the€appointment€ofÏa€psychiatric€expert.€€The€courts€have€held€that€a€"particularized€need"€must€beÏshown€by€a€defendant€before€a€state„funded€expert€is€provided€under€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€40„14„207(b).€€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€192Ï(Tenn.€1992),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€114€S.Ct.€740,€126€L.Ed.2d€702€(1994).€€The€defendantÍmust€show€that€a€substantial€need€exists€requiring€the€assistance€of€state€paidÏservices€and€that€his€defense€cannot€be€fully€developed€without€such€professionalÏassistance.€€òòIdóó.€€Such€a€showing€required€"more€than€undeveloped€assertions€thatÏthe€services€were€needed€to€attempt€to€counter€the€State's€proof."€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,Ï875€S.W.2d€253,€261€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€115€S.Ct.€743,€130€L.Ed.2d€644Ï(1995).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòBarnettóó,€the€court€adopted€the€"particularized€need"€test€forÏrequesting€state„funded€psychiatric€experts.€€It€summarized€the€following€principles:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]he€defendant€must€demonstrate€by€reference€to€theÏfacts€and€circumstances€of€his€particular€case€thatÏappointment€of€a€psychiatric€expert€is€necessary€toÏensure€a€fair€trial.€€Whether€or€not€a€defendant€has€madeÏthe€threshold€showing€is€to€be€determined€on€a€case€byÏcase€basis,€and€in€determining€whether€a€particularizedÏneed€has€been€established,€òòa€trial€court€should€considerÏall€facts€and€circumstances€known€to€it€at€the€time€theÏmotion€for€expert€assistance€is€made....óóÌÌÓÓòòBarnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€431€(emphasis€added).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€failed€to€meet€the€particularized€need€test.€€TheÏappellant€has€a€history€of€mental€illness„„€the€òòAkeóó€motion€was€documented€to€thatÏextent.€€The€appellant€did€not,€however,€show€specific€evidence€that€would€beÍdeveloped€through€the€appointment€of€an€additional€state„funded€expert.€ÏMoreover,€there€was€no€indication€as€to€who€would€conduct€an€examination,€whatÏan€independent€examination€would€reveal,€or€why€another€examination€wasÏnecessary€given€that€the€appellant€had€already€been€evaluated€by€officials€at€theÏMiddle€Tennessee€Mental€Health€Institution.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Hoodóó,€422€S.E.2dÏ679€(N.C.€1992),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€113€S.Ct.€1955,€123€L.Ed.2d€659€(1993)€(insufficientÏshowing).ÌÌà àà àThe€court„ordered€evaluation€by€MTMHI€was€not€necessarily€aÏsubstitute€for€the€appointment€of€an€independent€expert€to€assist€the€defense.€ÏòòCompareóó,€òòLanier€v.€Stateóó,€533€So.2d€473,€481€(Miss.€1988)€with€òòDeFreece€v.€Stateóó,Ï848€S.W.2d€150,€150€(Tex.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€114€S.Ct.€284,€126€L.Ed.2dÏ234€(1993).€€òòBarnettóó€states€that€upon€a€showing€of€particularized€need,€a€defendantÏmay€obtain€a€"competent,€independent€psychiatrist€who€will€conduct€an€appropriateÏexamination€and€òòassist€in€evaluation,€preparation,€and€presentation€of€theÏdefense.óó"€€òòBarnettóó,€slip€op.€at€18€(emphasis€added).€€The€appellant,€however,€didÏnot€show€that€the€evaluation€that€was€conducted€was€inadequate€or€that€theÍopinions€reached€were€incorrect.× ƒ@ ××  ×€€In€short,€the€appellant€presented€no€evidenceÏin€support€of€the€need€for€a€psychiatrist€and€instead€concentrated€solely€on€hisÏrequest€for€Dr.€Lipman,€the€€neuropharmacologist.€€The€trial€court€found€that€theÏneuropharmacologist€was€"uniquely€suited"€to€the€case€and€necessary€to€assureÏthe€appellant€would€receive€a€fair€trial.€€Under€such€circumstances,€we€cannotÏconclude€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€by€denying€the€request€forÏpsychiatric€assistance.€€€ÌÌà@ àò òIVó óÌà àà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€a€policeÏreport€that€described€a€prior€incident€in€which€he€had€been€sexually€harassed€byÏRobert€Huff.€€Sgt.€Gary€Hurst€of€the€Clarksville€Police€Department€testified€thatÏOfficer€Keith€LaPrade€had€completed€an€offense€report€for€June€19,€1991;€theÏreport€was€signed€by€Hurst€as€LaPrade's€supervisor.€€LaPrade€was€no€longer€withÏthe€Clarksville€Police.€€The€State€objected€to€the€admission€of€the€offense€report.ÌÌà àà àThe€defense€made€a€proffer€of€the€evidence€in€a€jury„out€proceeding.€ÏThe€offense€report€contained€the€appellant's€allegations€that€he€had€beenÏharassed€by€Huff.€€According€to€the€appellant,€Huff€had€knocked€on€his€door€andÏsaid€he€"wanted€to€have€sex"€with€the€appellant€and€would€do€so€"forcefully."€€TheÏappellant€also€said€that€Huff€had€left€notes€under€his€door€that€suggested€a€numberÏof€homosexual€acts.€€The€report€indicates€that€Huff€denied€making€any€threats€orÏleaving€the€notes.€€€€ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€defense€counsel€first€argued€that€the€report€as€a€whole€wasÏadmissible€as€a€record€of€regularly€conducted€activity€pursuant€to€Tennessee€RuleÏof€Evidence€803(6).× ƒA ××  ×€€He€also€made€a€general€argument€that€the€report€was€notÏoffered€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted,€but€rather€"for€the€relevance€of€[theÏappellant]€taking€it€so€serious€[that]€he€called€the€police...[and]€made€a€writtenÏcomplaint."€€Counsel€asserted€that€it€also€showed€the€appellant's€mental€state.€€TheÏtrial€court,€however,€excluded€the€evidence€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€EvidenceÏ803(8),€which€specifically€excludes€police€reports.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€the€appellant€asserts€that€the€evidence€was€admissible€onÍseveral€grounds.€€First,€he€contends€that€the€report€itself€was€admissible€underÏòòChambers€v.€Mississippióó,€410€U.S.€284€(1973).× ƒB ××  ×€€Second,€he€contends€that€hisÏstatements€to€the€officer€were€admissible€to€show€his€state€of€mind,€that€is,€his€fearÏof€Robert€Huff,€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€803(3).€€Finally,€he€contendsÏthat€Robert€Huff's€statements€were€not€offered€to€prove€their€truth,€but€rather,€toÏshow€the€effect€on€the€appellant.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòChambersóó,€òòsupraóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€said€thatÏ"where€constitutional€rights€directly€affecting€the€ascertainment€of€guilt€areÏimplicated,€the€hearsay€rule€may€not€be€applied€mechanistically€to€defeat€the€endsÏof€justice."€€470€U.S.€at€296.€€The€defendant€had€been€charged€with€murdering€aÏpolice€officer;€he€asserted€that€the€killing€had€been€committed€by€a€witness€namedÏMcDonald.€€At€trial,€McDonald's€sworn€confession€to€the€crime€was€admitted€intoÏevidence;€however,€McDonald€testified€that€he€was€innocent€and€he€asserted€anÏalibi.€€The€trial€court€refused€to€allow€the€defendant€to€present€three€witnesses€whoÏhad€heard€McDonald€confess,€ruling€that€such€testimony€was€hearsay.€€TheÏSupreme€Court€reversed€the€conviction,€noting€that€"[t]o€the€extent€that€McDonald'sÏsworn€confession€tended€to€incriminate€him,€it€tended€also€to€exculpate€Chambers."€ÍòòIdóó.€at€297.€€The€Court€held€that€the€evidence€was€"critical"€to€Chambers'€defenseÏand€that€its€exclusion€denied€him€a€fair€trial€in€accordance€with€due€process.€€òòIdóó.€atÏ302.ÌÌà àà àThe€same€conclusion€cannot€be€drawn€here.€€The€key€point€of€theÏproffered€evidence€was€that€the€appellant€had€made€a€prior€complaint€to€the€policeÏabout€alleged€harassment€by€Robert€Huff.€€This€evidence€was€heard€by€the€juryÏeven€without€the€police€report€of€the€incident.€€The€State's€first€witness,€RobertÏOsterholtz,€testified€that€when€he€responded€to€the€loud€music€complaint€onÏOctober€31,€1991,€the€appellant€told€him€about€prior€harassment€by€his€neighbors.€ÏAccording€to€Osterholtz,€the€appellant€said€that€the€resident€of€apartment€two,Ï(Huff's€apartment),€had€been€"putting€notes€on€his€door,€generally€harassing€him,Ï[and]€offering€some€sort€of€sexual€favors."€€He€made€specific€reference€toÏhomosexual€suggestions.ÌÌà àà àOther€witnesses€for€the€appellant€also€related€facts€about€the€priorÏepisode.€€Amelia€Bozeman€testified€that€in€the€late€summer€of€1991,€the€appellantÏtold€her€that€his€neighbor€had€threatened€to€rape€him.€€She€described€the€appellantÏas€"afraid"€and€"concerned"€about€the€incident.€€William€Cannady€testified€that€inÏthe€summer€of€1991,€the€appellant€told€him€that€Robert€Huff€was€"putting€notesÍunder€his€door€making€propositions."€€Cannady€testified€that€the€appellant€wasÏ"unhappy"€about€the€situation.€€Finally,€Debra€Weeks€testified€that€she€was€aware€ofÏ"aggravation"€that€existed€between€Huff€and€the€appellant.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€not€of€such€a€criticalÏnature€that€its€exclusion€deprived€the€appellant€of€a€fair€trial€as€in€òòChambersóó.€ÏSimilarly,€even€if€the€evidence€was€probative€of€the€appellant's€state€of€mind,€or€notÏoffered€as€true,€its€exclusion€did€not€affect€the€outcome€of€the€proceedings.€€TheÏproof€before€the€jury€adequately€described€the€prior€incident€as€well€as€theÏappellant's€state€of€mind€with€regard€to€Huff.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).ÌÌà@ àò òVÌó óà àà àDuring€the€State's€rebuttal,€Chris€Johnson€testified€about€hisÏencounter€with€the€appellant€at€the€Criminal€Justice€Complex€following€theÏoffenses.€€According€to€Johnson,€the€appellant€"flexed"€his€muscles€and€said€"ha,Ïha,€I€got€ya'll."€€The€appellant€argues€that€this€testimony€was€improper€because€itÏdid€not€rebut€evidence€raised€by€the€defense,€it€was€not€within€Johnson's€personalÏknowledge,€and€it€was€cumulative€to€the€testimony€of€Kevin€Howell€and€BrianÏJurisin.€€The€State€maintains€that€the€issue€was€waived€for€the€appellant's€failure€toÏobject€at€trial€and€that€the€evidence€was€properly€admitted.€€We€opt€to€review€theÍmerits€of€the€issue.ÌÌà àà àRebuttal€testimony€is€that€which€tends€to€explain€or€controvertÏevidence€produced€by€an€opposing€party.€€òòCozzolino€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€765,Ï768€(Tenn.€1979).€€Any€relevant€evidence€offered€in€direct€response€to€or€inÏcontradiction€of€material€evidence€offered€by€the€accused€or€elicited€on€crossÏexamination€is€admissible€in€rebuttal.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€831,€835€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1987).€€The€determination€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€judge€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€this€case.€€The€appellantÏraised€the€issue€of€his€mental€state€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€He€argued€that€theÏcrimes€were€triggered€by€circumstances€that€adversely€affected€his€paranoidÏschizophrenia.€€The€jury€could€find€that€the€testimony€describing€the€appellant'sÏdemeanor€immediately€following€the€offenses€was€probative€of€his€mental€stateÏduring€the€offenses.€€Johnson's€testimony,€therefore,€was€proper€to€rebut€theÏdefense€proof.€€It€was€not€cumulative,€because€the€burden€had€shifted€to€the€StateÏto€prove€sanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Moreover,€it€was€not€speculative.€ÏJohnson€initially€prefaced€his€testimony€by€saying€"I€believe,"€but€he€clarified€thatÏhe€was€certain€of€what€the€appellant€had€said.€€There€was€no€error€in€this€regard.ÌÌà@ àò òVI€&€VIIÌó óà àà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€Dr.€CarlÏSelavka,€Director€of€National€Medical€Services,€to€testify€in€the€State's€rebuttalÏcase.€€His€claim€is€twofold:€€(a)€Selavka€should€have€been€precluded€from€testifyingÏbecause€he€was€a€member€of€the€defense€team€whose€analysis€was€protectedÏwork€product;€and€(b)€the€trial€court€should€have€declared€a€mistrial€because€theÏState€engaged€in€misconduct€by€contacting€Selavka€and€misrepresentingÏSelavka's€relationship€to€the€parties.€€The€State€maintains€that€the€trial€courtÏallowed€Selavka€to€testify€as€to€limited€matters,€and€that€no€error€was€committed.€ÌÌà àà àThe€following€procedural€history€may€be€gleaned€from€the€extensiveÏlitigation€of€this€issue€below.€€The€trial€court€appointed€Dr.€Lipman,€aÏneuropharmacologist,€to€assist€with€the€defense.€€Lipman€conducted€a€42€day€studyÏof€the€appellant's€hair€growth€rate€and€preserved€a€sample€of€the€hair.€€HeÏdescribed€the€precise€methods€by€which€the€hair€growth€rate€was€measured€andÏhow€the€sample€was€collected€and€preserved.€€It€was€sent€to€National€MedicalÏServices€for€analysis€in€January€of€1993.€€The€lab€was€to€analyze€the€hair€forÏhaloperidol,€caffeine,€and€ephedrine,€and€to€relate€the€amounts€of€the€drugs€toÏspecific€periods€of€time.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€January€of€1993,€assistant€district€attorney€DeWerff€contacted€Dr.ÏSelavka€at€National€Medical€Services.€€On€January€27,€1993,€Selavka€sent€a€letterÏto€DeWerff€documenting€the€"proposed€protocol"€to€be€followed€in€the€forensicÏtesting€of€the€appellant's€hair.€€In€sum,€it€described€the€tests€used€in€the€normalÏscope€of€hair€analysis€and€the€tests€used€when€looking€for€haloperidol.€€The€letterÏnoted€that€an€accurate€measurement€of€the€appellant's€hair€growth€rate€was€anÏimportant€factor€to€"accurately€determine€the€time€period€represented€by€anyÏportion€of€the€hair."€€Selavka€concluded€the€letter€by€requesting€a€"document€whichÏstates€the€relationship€with€regard€to€confidentiality€of€testing€results€of€ourÏlaboratory€with€the€parties€involved€in€the€case."€€The€letter€noted:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àAs€we€discussed,€if€we€are€informed€in€writing€to€provideÏequal€access€to€the€results€to€all€identified€parties,€weÏwill€do€so.€€We€will,€of€course,€keep€all€conversationsÏand€consultations€with€any€one€side€confidential,€andÏwill€not€discuss€the€details€of€these€conversations€andÏconsultations€with€the€other€parties€in€the€case€unlessÏordered€to€do€so,€in€writing,€by€the€presiding€judge.ÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€response,€DeWerff€prepared€a€letter€addressed€to€Selavka€thatÏpurported€to€clarify€the€latter's€role€in€the€case:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWe€agree€that€you€are€not€retained€exclusively€by€theÏState€or€the€Defendant.€€You€are€working€in€conjunctionÏwith€Dr.€Jonathan€Lipman,€who€is€retained€by€theÏDefendant.€€However,€pursuant€to€Rule€16€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€your€report€andÏresults€will€be€made€available€to€both€sides.€€Therefore,Íyou€are€free€to€talk€with€all€counsel€involved.ÌÌÓÓThe€letter€was€dated€February€17,€1993,€and€it€was€signed€by€the€prosecutors.€ÏThere€was€an€unsigned€space€on€the€letter€for€defense€counsel.€€Defense€counselÏasserted€that€he€did€not€sign€the€letter€because€he€believed€Selavka€was€aÏmember€of€the€defense€team.€€Apparently€no€further€action€was€taken€on€the€matterÏfor€several€months.ÌÌà àà àOn€August€2,€1993,€Dr.€Lipman€faxed€a€memorandum€to€Selavka€thatÏcontained€additional€information€regarding€the€appellant's€neuroleptic€medicalÏrecords.€€The€memorandum€noted€that€while€"the€chronology€herein€is€abstractedÏfrom€institutional€records€available€to€both€defense€and€prosecution,€the€assemblyÏand€collation€of€the€chronology...is€the€proprietary€work€product€of€the€defense€andÏcan€only€be€released€to€the€prosecution€by€the€public€defender's€office...."€€OnÏAugust€10,€1993,€National€Medical€Services€completed€its€report€with€regard€to€theÏappellant's€hair.€€The€report€was€furnished€to€the€defense€and€the€prosecution.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€began€on€August€16,€1993.€€Just€prior€thereto,€a€conferenceÏwas€apparently€conducted€in€chambers.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€State€couldÏnot€contact€or€interview€Dr.€Lipman€without€the€presence€of€defense€counsel.€€AsÍthe€conference€was€ending,€DeWerff€asked€whether€the€court's€order€onlyÏpertained€to€Dr.€Lipman.€€The€court€said€that€it€did.€€Defense€counsel€hadÏapparently€left€the€conference€when€this€point€of€clarification€was€made.€ÌÌà àà àAfter€the€meeting,€DeWerff€contacted€Selavka€and€asked€him€toÏtestify.€€DeWerff€asserted€that€he€never€asked€Selavka€to€reveal€anyÏcommunications€he€had€with€either€defense€counsel€or€the€appellant.€€In€a€jury€outÏhearing,€Selavka€testified€that€did€not€reveal€any€communications€he€had€withÏdefense€counsel€to€the€State€and€that€he€did€not€disclose€any€of€the€raw€data€thatÏwent€into€the€study.€€He€did€not€discuss€hair€growth€analysis€with€DeWerff€until€afterÏthe€report€had€been€completed€and€furnished€to€both€sides.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€litigating€this€issue€at€trial,€the€appellant€claimed€that€the€StateÏimproperly€contacted€Selavka,€that€Selavka€had€information€that€was€privileged,Ïand€that€Selavka€had€information€that€was€protected€work€product.€€He€moved€toÏexclude€Selavka€from€testifying€and€requested€a€mistrial.€€The€trial€court€deniedÏboth€motions.€€The€court€limited€Selavka's€testimony,€however,€to€a€description€ofÏfactors€that€may€affect€the€rate€of€hair€growth,€a€discussion€of€the€degree€of€errorÏsuch€factors€may€cause,€and€a€discussion€of€his€lab's€protocol.€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òAó óÌà àà àThe€appellant€maintains€that€Selavka€should€not€have€been€allowedÏto€testify€because€his€information€was€work€product€and€not€discoverable.× ƒC ××  ×€€€TheÏòòreportóó€generated€by€National€Medical€Services€was€discoverable.€€The€applicableÏrule€provides€in€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]he€defendant,€on€request€of€the€state,€shall€permit€theÏstate€to€inspect€and€copy€or€photograph€any€results€orÏreports€of€physical€or€mental€examinations€and€ofÏscientific€tests€or€experiments€made€in€connection€withÏthe€particular€case,€or€copies€thereof,€within€theÏpossession€or€control€of€the€defendant€which€theÏdefendant€intends€to€introduce€as€evidence€in€chief€atÏthe€trial€or€which€were€prepared€by€a€witness€whom€theÏdefendant€intends€to€call€at€the€trial€when€the€results€orÏreports€relate€to€his€testimony.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(b)(1)(B).€€The€rule€does€not€authorize€the€discovery€of€workÏproduct:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àExcept€as€to€scientific€or€medical€reports,€thisÏsubdivision€does€not€authorize€the€discovery€orÏinspection€of€reports,€memoranda,€or€other€internalÏdefense€documents€made€by€the€defendant,€or€hisÏattorneys€or€agents€in€connection€with€the€investigationÏor€defense€of€the€case,€or€of€statements€made€by€theÏdefendant,€or€by€state€or€defense€witnesses,€or€byÏprospective€state€or€defense€witnesses,€to€theÏdefendant,€his€agents€or€attorneys.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(b)(2).ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€failed€to€show€that€any€"work€product"€was€disclosed€toÏthe€prosecution€through€Dr.€Selavka€or€National€Medical€Services.€€It€was€clear€thatÏDr.€Lipman€communicated€work€product€and€raw€data€to€Selavka;€however,€thereÏwas€no€evidence€at€trial€that€the€information€was€conveyed€to€the€prosecution.€€TheÏtestimony€of€Selavka€in€the€jury€out€hearing€supported€the€trial€court's€finding€thatÏno€violation€had€occurred.€€Moreover,€Selavka's€testimony€to€the€jury€was€limited€toÏmatters€not€covered€by€work€product.€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThis€case€differs€from€the€authority€cited€by€the€appellant.€€In€òòState€v.ÏIrickóó,€762€S.W.2d€121€(Tenn.€1988),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€489€U.S.€1072€(1989),€theÏdefense€requested€"rough€results"€of€an€F.B.I.€expert's€tests€on€hair€found€on€theÏvictim's€body€and€clothes.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion.€€The€defendant€hadÏbeen€provided€with€the€expert's€results€and€report€as€mandated€by€Rule€16.€€TheÏdefendant€was€also€extended€an€opportunity€to€interview€the€expert.€€He€wasÏentitled€to€no€more.€€The€supreme€court€affirmed€the€ruling.€€òòIdóó.€at€126;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÏòòLatham€v.€Stateóó,€560€S.W.2d€410,€411€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€€Similarly,€in€òòStateÏv.€Chico€Lopez€Chiganoóó,€No.€1333€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Sept.€26,€1991),Íthe€defense€requested€the€"rough€results"€of€an€expert's€ballistics€examination.€€TheÏdefense€was€provided€with€the€tests€results€and€given€the€opportunity€to€interviewÏthe€expert€about€the€results.€€The€request€was€denied€by€the€trial€court.€€On€appeal,Ïour€court€held€that€the€State€had€complied€with€its€discovery€obligation€under€RuleÏ16.€€€ÌÌà àà àHere€the€State€received€the€reports€and€results€of€the€analysis€on€theÏappellant's€hair.€€It€was€entitled€to€that€much€under€the€rules€of€discovery.€€ThereÏwas€simply€no€showing€that€the€State€received€protected€work€product€or€any€otherÏmaterial€to€which€it€was€not€entitled.€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òBó óÌà àà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€prosecutor€engaged€in€misconduct€byÏcontacting€Dr.€Selavka€and€by€misrepresenting€Selavka's€relationship€to€theÏparties.€€He€asserts€that€the€misconduct€warranted€a€mistrial.€€Although€we€questionÏthe€nature€and€necessity€of€the€prosecutor's€conduct,€we€disagree€that€a€mistrialÏwas€warranted.€€Ìà àà àWhether€to€grant€a€mistrial€lies€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€ÏòòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€786€S.W.2d€642,€644€(Tenn.€1990).€€A€mistrial€should€be€declaredÏin€a€criminal€case€only€in€the€event€of€a€"manifest€necessity"€that€requires€suchÍaction.€€òòState€v.€Millbrooksóó,€819€S.W.2d€441,€443€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€trialÏcourt's€determination€will€not€be€overturned€on€appeal€unless€it€is€shown€that€theÏtrial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€786€S.W.2d€744;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.ÏMounceóó,€859€S.W.2d€319,€322€(Tenn.€1993).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€general,€a€witness€or€prospective€witness€does€not€belong€to€eitherÏparty€and€may€talk€to€either€side€as€the€witness€sees€fit.€€òòState€v.€Singletonóó,€853ÏS.W.2d€491,€493€(Tenn.€1993).€€Obviously,€restrictions€come€into€play€in€the€eventÏof€a€privilege€or€non„discoverable€material.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€501.€€The€confusionÏthat€resulted€from€the€prosecution's€contacting€Selavka€could€easily€have€beenÏprevented.€€First,€the€prosecution€could€have€sought€information€about€hair€testingÏand€hair€growth€analysis€by€finding€an€entirely€different€expert.€€Moreover,€theÏprosecution€did€not€follow€through€when€Selavka€expressed€his€desire€to€beÏinformed€of€his€standing€by€court€order.€€Although€the€prosecution€initiallyÏattempted€to€respond€via€an€agreed€letter,€it€was€rebuked€by€defense€counsel.€ÏRather€than€seek€a€court€order€or€clarification,€the€matter€was€dropped.€€After€theÏreport€and€results€had€been€disclosed,€the€prosecution€again€contacted€SelavkaÏwithout€ever€having€officially€clarified€Selavka's€role.€€To€compound€the€problem,Ïthe€prosecutor€tried€to€"clarify"€the€matter€by€making€a€vague,€òòexóó€òòparteóó€inquiry€withÏthe€trial€judge€as€the€pre„trial€meeting€in€chambers€was€concluding.€€TheÍprosecutor€had€no€explanation€for€why€the€issue€was€not€discussed€fully€andÏopenly.€€Moreover,€the€entire€matter€should€have€been€resolved€well€before€trial.ÌÌà àà àNonetheless,€there€simply€was€no€prejudice€to€the€appellant.€€The€trialÏcourt€allowed€the€appellant€to€litigate€this€issue€fully€before€making€a€ruling.€€TheÏtrial€court€heard€the€jury€out€testimony€from€Selavka€and€the€arguments€of€counsel.€ÏThe€court€found€that€no€information€of€a€protected€nature€was€transmitted€fromÏSelavka€to€the€prosecution.€€The€court€limited€Selavka's€testimony€to€matters€ofÏlaboratory€protocol€and€hair€growth€variables.€€Accordingly,€we€cannot€concludeÏthat€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€denying€the€motion€for€a€mistrial.€€€€€à à€ÌÌÓÓà@ àò òVIIIó óÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€SelavkaÏto€testify€as€an€expert€in€hair€growth€analysis.€€He€claims€that€Selavka€was€notÏqualified€in€the€field,€and€that€the€testimony€was€reversible€error.€€The€StateÏmaintains€that€there€was€a€proper€foundation€for€the€testimony€and€that€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€abuse€its€discretion.ÌÌà àà àRule€702€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledgeÏwill€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€theÏevidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue,€a€witnessÏqualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,€experience,Ïtraining,€or€education€may€testify€in€the€form€of€anÏopinion€or€otherwise.ÌÌÓÓThe€qualification,€admissibility,€relevancy,€and€competency€of€expert€testimony€areÏmatters€largely€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€The€trial€court's€determinationÏmay€be€overturned€on€appeal€if€arbitrarily€exercised.€€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2dÏ557,€562€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€872€S.W.2d€950,€954€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993).ÌÌà àà àSelavka€testified€that€he€had€a€bachelor's€degree€in€chemistry,€aÏmaster's€degree€in€forensic€chemistry,€and€a€doctorate€in€forensic€appliedÏchemistry.€€The€doctorate€was€earned€in€1987.€€Since€1991,€Selavka€had€workedÏas€the€director€of€forensic€services€at€National€Medical€Services.€€In€that€capacity,Ïhe€supervised€the€testing€and€analysis€of€hair€samples.€€He€described€the€methodsÏof€hair€analysis,€which€are€both€biologically€and€chemically€based.ÌÌà àà àSelavka€testified€that€National€Medical€Services€conducted€hairÏgrowth€studies€on€a€regular€basis.€€Selavka€had€conducted€three€of€the€studiesÏpersonally.€€He€testified€that€he€had€also€read€material€by€other€authors€in€the€fieldÍof€hair€growth€analysis€as€it€related€to€analysis€for€nutritional€elements€and€drugs.€ÏHe€said€he€had€attended€two€seminars,€one€for€half€a€day€and€the€other€for€twoÏhours,€in€which€hair€growth€studies€were€discussed.€€Selavka€described€hairÏgrowth€analysis€as€an€area€within€the€field€of€hair€testing€and€analysis.€€HeÏdescribed€both€hair€growth€analysis€and€hair€analysis€as€areas€within€the€broaderÏfield€of€forensic€analytical€chemistry.€€Selavka€conceded,€however,€that€he€had€notÏpreviously€testified€in€court€about€hair€growth€studies.ÌÌà àà àWe€conclude€that€the€appellant€has€not€shown€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€allowing€Selavka€to€testify€as€an€expert€witness.€€The€trial€court€deemed€himÏqualified€by€virtue€of€his€education,€experience,€and€knowledge€in€the€field.€€TheÏtestimony€itself€was€fairly€limited,€and€it€involved€largely€a€recitation€of€factors€thatÏmay€affect€the€rate€of€hair€growth.€€Accordingly,€the€appellant€is€not€entitled€to€reliefÏon€this€ground.€ÌÌà àà àà@ àò òIXó óÌà àà àFinally,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€committed€severalÏerrors€in€sentencing:€finding€that€he€was€a€multiple€offender€on€counts€three€andÏfour,€enhancing€the€sentences€for€aggravated€assault€based€on€the€use€of€aÏfirearm,€failing€to€consider€the€appellant's€mental€illness€as€a€mitigating€factor,€andÍimposing€consecutive€sentences.€€In€reviewing€the€sentences,€we€must€conduct€aÏòòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€on€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€byÏthe€trial€court€were€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„401(d).€€The€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÏcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€record€ofÏsentencing€reveals€that€the€trial€court€"considered€all€of€the€evidence,€both€at€theÏtrial€of€the€case€and€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€including€the€presentence€reportÏand€the€exhibits,€the€testimony€of€all€the€witnesses€both€at€trial€and€[sentencing],Ïand€...€considered€what€the€State€Legislature€has€ordered€[it]€to€consider€throughÏthe€sentencing€[act]."€€Thus,€the€court's€determinations€warrant€the€presumption€ofÏcorrectness.ÌÌà@ àò òAó óÌà àà àA€multiple€offender€is€a€defendant€who€has€"a€minimum€of€two€(2)€butÏnot€more€than€four€(4)€prior€felony€convictions€within€the€conviction€class,€a€higherÏclass,€or€within€the€next€two€(2)€lower€felony€classes,"€or€"one€(1)€class€A€priorÏfelony€conviction€if€the€defendant's€conviction€offense€is€a€class€A€or€B€felony."€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„106(a)(1)€&€(2).€€Although€the€appellant€now€argues€thatÏhe€was€not€a€multiple€offender€for€counts€three€and€four€(attempted€first€and€secondÍdegree€murder),€the€record€clearly€indicates€that€counsel€stipulated€the€appellant'sÏmultiple€offender€status€for€counts€four€through€nine.€€In€any€event,€the€recordÏsupported€multiple€offender€sentencing.ÌÌà àà àCount€three,€attempted€first€degree€murder,€was€a€class€A€felony,€andÏcount€four,€attempted€second€degree€murder,€was€a€class€B€felony.€€The€StateÏintroduced€two€prior€convictions€to€prove€the€appellant's€multiple€offender€status:€€aÏ1978€conviction€in€Tennessee€for€assault€with€intent€to€commit€murder€under€thenÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„604;€and€a€1984€conviction€in€MinnesotaÏfor€second€degree€assault.€€The€appellant€does€not€specifically€contest€theÏclassification€of€the€1978€Tennessee€conviction€as€a€class€A€felony.× ƒD ××  ×€€He€arguesÏthat€the€Minnesota€conviction€was€not€shown€to€be€"within€the€conviction€class,€aÏhigher€class,€or€within€the€next€two€(2)€lower€classes."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„106(a)(1).€€ÌÌà àà àAs€the€State€notes,€a€conviction€from€another€state€may€be€used€toÍdetermine€the€proper€sentencing€classification.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„106(b)(5).€€If€"a€felony€from€a€jurisdiction€other€than€Tennessee€is€not€a€namedÏfelony€in€this€state,€the€elements€of€the€offense€shall€be€used€by€the€TennesseeÏcourt€to€determine€what€classification€the€offense€is€given."€€òòIdóó.€€Here,€the€StateÏintroduced€a€certified€copy€of€the€Minnesota€statute;€it€defined€the€offense€of€assaultÏin€the€second€degree€as€an€assault€with€a€dangerous€weapon€without€causingÏgreat€bodily€injury.€€The€State€argued,€and€the€trial€court€found,€that€the€elements€ofÏthe€Minnesota€offense€matched€the€elements€of€aggravated€assault€in€TennesseeÏboth€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„2„101€and€current€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€39„13„102.€€Since€both€the€former€and€present€aggravatedÏassault€offense€is€designated€a€class€C€felony,€the€court€treated€the€MinnesotaÏoffense€as€a€class€C€felony.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€has€not€shown€that€the€trial€court's€determination€wasÏincorrect.€€Accordingly,€the€State€proved€that€the€appellant€had€prior€convictions€forÏa€class€A€and€C€felony,€and€the€court€properly€sentenced€him€as€a€multiple€offenderÏon€counts€three€through€nine.ÌÌà@ àò òBó óÌà àà àThe€appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€improperly€enhanced€theÍsentences€for€aggravated€assault€(counts€five€to€eight)€because€he€used€a€firearm.€ÏòòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„114(9).€€The€State€concedes€the€error,€as€theÏindicted€offenses€were€predicated€on€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€The€StateÏmaintains€that€the€sentences€were€nonetheless€proper€based€on€the€remainingÏenhancement€factors.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àà àAs€a€multiple€offender,€the€applicable€range€of€punishment€for€theÏclass€C€felonies€was€six€to€ten€years.€€The€trial€court€imposed€nine€year€sentences.€ÏThe€court€found€that€the€appellant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€orÏbehavior€in€addition€to€that€used€to€establish€the€range,€that€he€had€no€hesitationÏabout€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,€and€that€the€crimesÏresulted€in€death€and€bodily€injury€to€other€persons€and€the€appellant€had€a€priorÏconviction€for€a€felony€resulting€in€death€or€bodily€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„114€(1),€(10)€&€(11).€€The€appellant€has€not€shown€that€these€factors€were€appliedÏincorrectly.ÌÌà àà àThe€weight€to€be€afforded€each€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt€so€long€as€it€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989ÏSentencing€Act,€and€the€findings€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð40„35„210€(sentencing€commission€comments).€€Three€of€the€fourÍenhancing€factors€were€fully€applicable.€€The€trial€court€also€noted€the€appellant'sÏmental€illness€was€a€mitigating€factor.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„113(8).€€The€trialÏcourt€did€not€impose€the€maximum€sentence€in€the€range€for€any€of€the€offenses.€ÏAccordingly,€notwithstanding€the€elimination€of€one€enhancing€factor,€theÏsentences€for€aggravated€assault€were€entirely€appropriate.ÌÌà@ àò òCó óÌà àà àFinally€the€appellant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€imposingÏconsecutive€sentences.€€He€argues€that€his€mental€illness€weighs€against€theÏimposition€of€consecutive€sentences€and€that€the€aggravated€assault€sentencesÏ(counts€five€to€eight)€should€not€be€consecutive€because€the€victims€were€all€in€theÏsame€car€and€the€"targets"€of€the€same€criminal€conduct.× ƒE ××  ×€€The€State€maintainsÏthat€the€record€supports€the€trial€court's€findings€that€the€appellant's€record€ofÏcriminal€activity€is€extensive€and€that€he€is€a€dangerous€offender.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð40„35„115(b)(2)€&€(4).ÌÌà àà àThe€record€and€the€presentence€report€support€the€finding€that€theÏappellant's€record€of€criminal€activity€is€extensive.€€It€includes€the€1978€convictionÍfor€assault€with€intent€to€commit€murder,€a€1980€conviction€for€assault,€the€1984Ïconviction€for€assault€with€a€deadly€weapon,€the€1985€attack€upon€his€sister,€andÏseveral€misdemeanors.€€The€mental€health€records€introduced€at€trial€also€madeÏreference€to€several€criminal€acts€committed€by€the€appellant€while€hospitalized.€€InÏsum,€the€appellant€has€not€shown€that€application€of€this€factor€was€incorrect.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Marshallóó,€888€S.W.2d€786€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€record€also€supports€the€finding€the€appellant€is€a€dangerousÏoffender.€€In€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€908€S.W.2d€933€(Tenn.€1995),€our€supreme€courtÏsaid€that€evidence€which€shows€a€defendant€had€little€or€no€regard€for€human€lifeÏand€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€was€highÏestablishes€that€the€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€but€is€not€alone€sufficient€forÏconsecutive€sentencing.€€Instead,ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[t]he€proof€must€also€establish€that€the€terms€imposedÏare€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offensesÏcommitted€and€are€necessary€in€order€to€protect€theÏpublic€from€further€criminal€acts€by€the€offender.€€InÏaddition€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€requires€applicationÏto€all€cases.€€The€Act€requires€a€principled€justificationÏfor€every€sentence,€including,€of€course,€consecutiveÏsentences.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„102(1);€40„35„103(1)(2);€40„35„113;€40„35„114€(1990€&€Supp.Ï1994).ÌÌÓÓÌòòIdóó.€at€938.€€Here,€the€trial€court€ordered€some€of€the€sentences€to€be€servedÏconsecutively,€but€also€grouped€other€sentences€to€run€€concurrently.€€The€courtÏmade€the€following€findings:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIn€this€case,€the€fact€[is]€that€beyond€any€shadow€of€aÏdoubt,€confinement€of€[the€appellant]€is€necessary€toÏprotect€society,€to€avoid€deprecating€the€seriousness€ofÏthe€offense€....€[This]€case€is€a€tragic€grotesque€failure€ofÏthe€mental€health€system€and€the€criminal€justiceÏsystem.€€ÌÌà àà à****ÌÌà8 àà8 à[The€appellant]€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behaviorÏindicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life€and€absolutelyÏno€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€riskÏto€human€life€is€high.€€ÌÌÓÓAgain,€the€appellant€has€failed€to€show€that€this€factor€was€improperly€applied.€€TheÏrecord€fully€supports€the€trial€court's€findings,€as€well€as€findings€that€the€sentencesÏwere€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€and€necessary€to€protect€the€public€fromÏfurther€criminal€acts€by€the€appellant.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€_____________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€William€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJoe€B.€Jones,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌWilliam€Acree,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌò òà àà àó ó€€€