ÿWPC\" FÏ0A½¡|H+|=ƒâý 1qv¯\ Y]…&É"s'~ÖRBÀ;Sš¦Pü5F1&!8nU~)h5Õñ§œ Ê3Ÿ?Í«bártAµÿU®ºå¥%ºÇÙ+jœÓñâèþr‹ÕPì.ÀT£KC¬›‰@¡uÀtÖë GÈäÛWò§ùèÒ×ÈXTWΡûšã`S ïñG¦w|Ü4CÒXPîz`_²„ë—óü[‰z/“Ûÿ€çjÆ‹ñ ÑRØÊ3®ôr˜élM8B“£?r;z!PÛšµ“YƵUt£½Hr6T”IÅ{õÒp©Â Ž^—sC7+¯8Ù5í.ÏäŸ{U»ÿ2·è‚Òž/ò¼0ÞÇ üAéó“—¯èGÃGƵK±ÚÉÃ@¾<ÇsМ~áÏär·‡I£kôÇë[:b#«%†Û¸NHʈ)/çíf!Ý]9TôMp7Ù¸.¤Æw°ß­2à +p)q|±MM 3 ¦ÂlLæGÓ=ü­ðÇî‚­–{Nwv'hJÐ4£t1?<æ$åsó!%”Ð ”Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWarning:à0”ä Ð ä Ð àDo€you€understand€that€you€do€not€have€toÐ j, #' Ðtalk€to€the€police€without€an€attorney€beingÏpresent?Ð ”Ð ”Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àDefendant:à0”ä Ð ä Ð àI€don't€understand.Ð/¼%*”Ð ”Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWarning:à0”ä Ð ä Ð àDo€you€understand€that€you€could€stop€theÐ è0ˆ', Ðquestioning€by€police€at€any€time€until€youÏhave€an€attorney€present?Ð ”Ð ”Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àDefendant:à0”ä Ð ä Ð àI€don't€understand.€Ðš3:*/”Ð ”Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWarning:à0”ä Ð ä Ð àYou€have€the€right€to€remain€silent.Ðf5,1”Ð ”Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àDefendant:à0”ä Ð ä Ð àI€will€talk€with€a€lawyer.ÐL6ì,2”Ð ”Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWarning:à0”ä Ð ä Ð àAnything€you€say€can€be€used€against€youÐ 8¸.4 Ðin€court.Ðþ8ž/5”Ð ”Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àDefendant:à0”ä Ð ä Ð àWhat€I€want,€to€talk€with€a€lawyer,€justÐ `  Ðwhatever.Ð ”Ð ”Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWarning:à0”ä Ð ä Ð àIf€you€cannot€afford€to€hire€a€lawyer,€oneÐ  ² Ðwill€be€appointed€to€represent€you€beforeÏany€questioning€if€you€wish€one.Ð ”Ð ”Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àDefendant:à0”ä Ð ä Ð àIf€I€can't€afford€a€lawyer,€then€I€will€not€talkÐ Äd Ðwith€a€€lawyer.€€And€then€if€I€can€afford€aÏlawyer,€then€I€will€talk€to€a€lawyer.Ð ”Ð ”Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWarning:à0”ä Ð ä Ð àIf€you€decide€to€answer€any€questions€now,Ð \ü  Ðwithout€a€lawyer€present,€you€will€have€theÏright€to€stop€answering€at€any€time.€€YouÏalso€have€the€right€to€stop€answering€at€anyÏtime€until€you€talk€to€a€lawyer.Ð ”Ð ”Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àDefendant:à0”ä Ð ä Ð àI€can't€decide€to€talk€to€a€lawyer€until€aÐ Úz  Ðlawyer's€gotten,€then€we€can€talk.Ð ”Ð ”Ð  ÐÌÌÌÓj›Óà Œ àà ä àOn€cross„examination,€the€defendant€testified€that€he€had€receivedÏinstruction€in€American€Sign€Language€in€school€for€fourteen€years.€€He€stated€thatÏhe€understood€the€written€word€and€American€Sign€Language€"the€same."€€HeÏconceded€that€he€was€somewhat€familiar€with€the€court€system€but€maintained€thatÏhe€did€not€fully€understand€his€rights€because€he€was€under€the€influence€of€glueÏand€the€words€were€blurry.€€He€stated€that€he€would€have€understood€his€rights€asÏhe€read€them€if€he€had€not€taken€any€glue.€€The€defendant€maintained€that€he€couldÏwrite€clearly€and€on€the€line€because€he€took€his€time€and€the€influence€of€glue€hadÏbegun€to€wear€off€at€that€point.€€He€admitted€that€he€never€asked€for€a€lawyer.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àDr.€Gillian€Blair€summarized€the€defendant's€social€and€medical€historyÏand€presented€her€diagnosis€of€schizophrenia,€paranoid€type,€with€substanceÏdependence,€all€of€which€was€similar€to€her€testimony€later€at€trial.€€Dr.€Blair€alsoÏexplained€that€at€Middle€Tennessee€Mental€Health€Institute,€an€examiningÏpsychologist€Dr.€Sheila€Peters€had€found€that€the€defendant€was€untestable€andÏ"question[ed]€whether€he€could€adequately€understand€the€written€word."€€Dr.€BlairÏstated€that€the€defendant€was€"significantly€impaired€by€virtue€of€the€solvents€that€heÐ 8¸.4 Ðhad€been€inhaling"€and€she€again€pointed€to€his€diagnosis€of€paranoidÏschizophrenia.€€Dr.€Blair,€who€reviewed€the€defendant's€second€statement€to€police,Ïtestified€that€she€had€"grave€concerns"€about€the€defendant's€condition€when€theÏstatement€was€given,€some€four€hours€after€the€shooting.€€The€defendant€told€herÏthat€he€had€felt€very€confused€at€the€time.€€Dr.€Blair€also€had€"grave€concerns€aboutÏhis€ability€to€understand€written€statements."€€Dr.€Blair€testified€that€while€she€wasÏtesting€the€defendant,€he€had€experienced€difficulty€understanding€the€meaning€ofÏwords,€which€had€surprised€her€because€he€is€a€high€school€graduate€who€can€readÏand€write.€€She€had€learned€from€the€interpreter€that€assisted€in€the€interview€that€"inÏthe€[American€Sign€Language]€translation,€the€meaning€can€be€very€concrete,€andÏthe€abstract€meaning€[of€a€word]€is€not€always€apparent."ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Blair€conceded€that€the€questions€put€to€theÏdefendant€by€Detective€Butts€were€not€complicated,€that€the€defendant€had€averageÏintelligence,€and€in€her€report€she€had€noted€that€he€"reads€well."€€She€alsoÏacknowledged€that€the€defendant's€statement€was€consistent€with€the€physicalÏevidence€found€at€the€Perry€residence.€€Dr.€Blair€recognized€that€the€defendant€hadÏsome€familiarity€with€the€court€system.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àYvonne€Fuhrer,€an€interpreter€with€the€League€for€the€HearingÏImpaired,€has€been€using€American€Sign€Language€all€of€her€life€and€is€certified€as€aÏsign„language€interpreter.€€She€testified€that€while€English€is€a€written€and€spokenÏlanguage,€American€Sign€Language€is€a€conceptual€language€that€is€"dependentÏupon€vision€to€have€the€context€of€an€idea."€€American€Sign€Language€is€actually€aÏforeign€language€in€the€United€States:€"It€has€its€own€grammatical€order€and€syntaxÏ...€completely€separate€from€the€English€language."€€Ms.€Fuhrer€testified€that€whileÏmost€English€speaking€people€learn€the€language€from€listening,€the€deaf,€who€doÐ 8¸.4 Ðnot€have€the€benefit€of€incidental€learning,€do€not€"pick€up"€phrases€or€hear€theÏdifferent€contexts€in€which€words€can€be€used.€€Thus,€Ms.€Fuhrer€concluded€that€theÏdefendant,€after€having€read€the€ñ¬Fñòòñ¬FñMirandañ¬Fñóóñ¬Fñ€warnings,€would€not€understand€them€asÐ ø ˜ Ðwould€a€hearing€person.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àMs.€Fuhrer€testified€that€most€deaf€people€read€on€a€third€or€fourthÏgrade€level€and,€although€the€defendant€had€graduated€from€high€school,€that€factÏdid€not€convince€her€that€he€would€have€understood€the€ñ­Fñòòñ­FñMirandañ­Fñóóñ­Fñ€rights€as€he€readÐ ô”  Ðthem.€€Ms.€Fuhrer€stated€that€only€a€small€percentage€of€the€deaf€can€read€lipsÏbecause€it€requires€special€training€and€many€hours€of€study.€€She€described€lipÏreading€as€only€thirty„five€percent€accurate.€€Ms.€Fuhrer€testified€that€she€interpretedÏthe€ñ®Fñòòñ®FñMirandañ®Fñóóñ®Fñ€warnings€to€the€defendant€at€the€arraignmentÓÓ€and€he€Ó+¶Óhad€repliedÐ $Ä Ðimmediately€that€he€wanted€an€attorney.€€Ms.€Fuhrer€said,€given€her€experience€withÏthe€deaf,€that€there€was€a€substantial€possibility€that€the€defendant€did€notÏunderstand€the€written€ñ¯Fñòòñ¯FñMirandañ¯Fñóóñ¯Fñ€warnings.€Ð ˆ"( ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€denying€the€defendant's€motion€to€suppress,€the€trial€courtÏconcluded€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à[The€defendant]€is€more€intelligent€than€the€normalÏperson€that€we€deal€with.€€Now,€he€has€communicationÏdifficulties,€but€intelligence€is€not€the€problem.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < àI€make€that€observation€to€point€out€the€level€ofÏunderstanding€of€the€rights€of€a€defendant€is€very€low€forÏadmissibility,€because€if€it€were€any€higher,€many€of€theÏcitizens€charged€with€crimes€...€simply€would€neverÏunderstand€their€rights.€€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < à[I]f€the€accused€has€sufficient€understanding€toÏcomprehend€the€obligation€of€an€oath€and€is€capable€ofÏgiving€a€correct€account€of€the€matters€of€which€he€hasÏknowledge,€he's€competent€to€be€a€witness.€...€Ï[C]ompetency€of€a€witness€and€competency€to€confessÏ[equate€with€each€other].Ð ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < àTherefore,€if€the€accused€comprehends€that€heÏneed€not€talk,€that€he€could€have€a€lawyer,€that€theÏstatements€can€be€used€against€him.€€And€if€hisÏconfession€did€not€involve€official€coercion,€then€he€canÐ þ8ž/5 Ðmake€a€valid€waiver€of€his€rights.€€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < àI€understand€the€dangers€inherent€to€takingÏstatements€and€so€forth€from€persons€who€are€deaf.€€...ÏThe€question€is:€€Was€the€way€it€was€done€sufficientÏunder€the€law?€€And€the€Court€rules€that€it€is.€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < àI€have€read€[the€defendant's€statement].€...€[T]heÏquestions€were€written€out€for€[the€defendant],€he€readÏthem,€and€then€he€wrote€out€the€answers.€...€And€it€isÏcoherent€question€and€answer.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < àObviously,€in€whatever€state€[the€defendant]€wasÏin€that€night,€he€was€able€to€comprehend€questions€andÏgive€intelligent€answers.€€The€Court€is€of€the€opinion€thatÏhe€was€simply€capable€of€understanding€these€MirandaÏrights€and€did€understand€these€Miranda€rights€at€theÏtime€that€they€were€shown€to€him€and€he€read€them.à ¤ àà @¤ àÓã·ÓÐô” ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÔ‡ X‡§XXX‡§ÔÌà Œ àà ä àÔ#†X‡§XX X‡§oÀ#ÔÔ‡ X‡§XXX‡§ÔOur€scope€of€review€is€limited.€€The€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trialÐ Œ, Ðjudge€at€a€hearing€on€a€motion€to€suppress€"will€be€upheld€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€otherwise."€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€Ð $Ä ÐQuestions€about€witness€credibility€and€"resolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€areÏmatters€entrusted€to€the€trial€judge."€€òòId.óó€€Ô#†X‡§XX X‡§ÊÀ#ÔTestimony€presented€at€trial€may€beÐ ¼ \ Ðconsidered€by€an€appellate€court€in€deciding€the€propriety€of€the€trial€court's€ruling€onÏa€motion€to€suppress.€€òòState€v.€Henningóó,€975€S.W.2d€290€(Tenn.€1998).Ô‡ X‡§XXX‡§Ô€€If€theÐ T$ô Ð"greater€weight"€of€the€evidence€supports€the€court's€ruling,€it€will€be€upheld.€€òòId.óó€Ð  &À  ÐYet,€this€court€must€conduct€a€de€novo€review€of€the€trial€court's€application€of€law€toÏfact.€€òòState€v.€Bridgesóó,€963€S.W.2d€487€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Yearganóó,€958€S.W.2dÐ ¸)X $ Ð626€(Tenn.€1997).€Ô#†X‡§XX X‡§Ã#ÔÔ‡ X‡§XXX‡§Ô€Ô#†X‡§XX X‡§/Å#ÔÔ‡ X‡§XXX‡§ÔÐ „+$"& ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€trial€court€made€no€ruling€on€the€admissibility€of€the€first,€unwarnedÏstatement.€€Ô#†X‡§XX X‡§rÅ#ÔÔ‡ X‡§XXX‡§ÔGenerally,€òòMirandaóó€warnings€must€precede€a€custodial€interrogation.€Ð è0ˆ', ÐòòBerkemer€v.€McCartyóó,€468€U.S.€420€(1984).€€The€test€to€be€applied€to€determine€ifÐ ´2T). Ðan€individual€is€in€custody€is€whether€a€"reasonable€[person]€in€the€suspect'sÏposition"€would€have€believed€himself€or€herself€to€be€"in€custody."€€òòId.óó,€468€U.S.€atÐ L6ì,2 Ð442;€òòsee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€912€S.W.2d€756€(1995).€€Ð 8¸.4 Їà Œ àà ä àIn€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€937€S.W.2d€851,€855€(Tenn.€1996),€our€supremeÐ `  Ðcourt€held€that€whether€a€person€is€"in€custody"€depends€on€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances.€€Factors€which€may€be€considered€include€time,€duration,€locationÏand€character€of€the€interview,€the€tone€and€demeanor€of€the€questioning€officer,€theÏmanner€in€which€the€suspect€was€transported€to€the€location€of€questioning,€theÏnumber€of€law€enforcement€officials€present,€limitations€or€restraints€placed€on€theÏsuspect's€movement,€interaction€between€the€suspect€and€the€questioning€officer,Ïconfrontation€by€officersÔ#†X‡§XX X‡§9Æ#ÔÔ‡ X‡§XXX‡§Ô€with€evidence€of€guilt,€and€the€whether€the€suspect€isÐ ô”  Ðinformed€that€he€or€she€may€refuse€to€answer€questions€and€may€end€theÏquestioning€at€any€time.€€òòId.óó€€Here,€the€defendant's€hands€and€feet€were€bound.€€HeÐ Œ, Ðhad€been€restrained€in€a€patrol€car€for€several€hours€before€being€transported€to€theÏpolice€station€where,€still€wearing€handcuffs,€he€was€interviewed€by€two€officers.€€Ô#†X‡§XX X‡§àÊ#ÔÔ‡ X‡§XXX‡§ÔHeÐ $Ä Ðwas€not€free€to€leave.€€From€all€of€€this,€we€must€conclude€that€the€defendantÏprovided€both€of€the€incriminating€statements€while€"in€custody";€thus,€properÏòòMirandaóó€warnings€were€required.€€Ô#†X‡§XX X‡§ÍÌ#ÔÔ‡ X‡§XXX‡§ÔAs€no€warnings€were€provided€before€the€initialÐ ˆ"( Ðstatement€was€elicited,€that€statement€should€have€been€suppressed€by€the€trialÏcourt.€€Any€error€in€failing€to€suppress€the€statement€was€certainly€not€prejudicial,Ïhowever,€because€the€unwarned€statement€was€not€admitted€at€trial.€€Ô#†X‡§XX X‡§ëÍ#ÔÔ‡ X‡§XXX‡§ÔMoreover,€theÐ ì'Œ" Ðdefendant€does€not€argue€that€the€first,€unwarned€confession€tainted€the€second,Ïwarned€confession.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€834€S.W.2d€915€(Tenn.€1992).Ô#†X‡§XX X‡§[Ï#ÔÐ „+$"& ÐÌà Œ àà ä àÔ‡ X‡§XXX‡§ÔA€warned€confession€must€meet€constitutional€safeguards.€€òòMiranda€v.Ð /¼%* ÐArizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436€(1966).€€This€court€must€examine€the€Ô#†X‡§XX X‡§ŽÐ#ÔÔ‡ X‡§XXX‡§Ô€Ô#†X‡§XX X‡§jÑ#ÔÔ‡ X‡§XXX‡§Ô"Ô#†X‡§XX X‡§­Ñ#ÔÔ‡ X‡§XXX‡§Ôtotality€of€theÐ è0ˆ', ÐcircumstancesÔ#†X‡§XX X‡§ðÑ#ÔÔ‡ X‡§XXX‡§Ô"€Ô#†X‡§XX X‡§cÒ#ÔÔ‡ X‡§XXX‡§Ôto€ascertain€whether€the€particular€defendant€knowingly€andÐ ´2T). Ðvoluntarily€waived€his€constitutional€rights€prior€to€making€a€confession.€€òòState€v.Ð €4 +0 ÐBushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€500€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ô#†X‡§XX X‡§§Ò#Ô"The€relinquishment€of€the€right€must€beÐ L6ì,2 Ðvoluntary€in€the€sense€that€it€is€the€product€of€a€free€and€deliberate€choice€ratherÐ 8¸.4 Ðthan€the€product€of€intimidation,€coercion[,]€or€deception.€€Moreover,€the€waiver€mustÏbe€made€with€full€awareness€of€both€the€nature€of€the€right€being€abandoned€andÏthe€consequences€of€the€decision€to€abandon€it."€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2dÐ ø ˜ Ð530,€544„45€(Tenn.€1994)€(citing€òòFare€v.€Michael€C.óó,€442€U.S.€707€(1979);€òòNorthÐ Äd ÐCarolina€v.€Butleróó,€441€U.S.€369,€374-75€(1979)).€€Factors€relevant€in€determiningÐ 0 Ðwhether€a€confession€is€voluntary€include€(1)€the€length€of€time€between€the€arrestÏand€the€confession;€(2)€the€occurrence€of€intervening€events€between€the€arrest€andÏconfession;€(3)€the€giving€of€òòMirandaóó€warnings;€and€(4)€the€purpose€and€flagrancy€ofÐ ô”  Ðthe€official€misconduct.€€òòBrown€v.€Illinoisóó,€422€U.S.€590,€603„04€(1975);€òòState€v.Ð À` ÐChandleróó,€547€S.W.2d€918,€920€(Tenn.€1977).€€The€overriding€question,€however,€isÐ Œ, Ðwhether€the€behavior€of€law€enforcement€officials€served€to€overbear€theÏdefendant's€will€to€resist.€€òòState€v.€Kellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€726,€728€(Tenn.€1980);€òòseeóóÐ $Ä ÐòòState€v.€Howardóó,€617€S.W.2d€656,€658„59€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€€With€theÐ ð Ðexception€of€the€initial€unwarned€confession,€there€is€no€evidence€of€officialÏmisconduct€in€this€record.€€The€defendant€was€interviewed€within€hours€of€his€arrestÏwith€no€remarkable€events€intervening.€€He€appeared€coherent€and€calm€and€neverÏasked€for€an€attorney.€€He€had€some€familiarity€with€the€court€system.€€DetectiveÏButts€read€the€waiver€of€rights€form€to€the€defendant€and€asked€the€defendant€toÏread€it€to€himself.€€The€defendant€read€it€and€indicated€that€he€understood€his€rights.Ìà Œ àà ä àÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€argues€that€he€could€not€have€understood€his€rights€orÏvoluntarily€or€knowingly€waived€his€rights€because€he€suffers€from€paranoidÏschizophrenia,€was€under€the€influence€of€glue,€and€did€not€have€a€sign€language€Ïinterpreter.€€Yet€a€statement€€provided€by€a€suspect€who€is€under€the€influence€ofÏdrugs€is€admissible€so€long€as€the€statement€is€coherent.€€òòState€v.€Greenóó,€613Ð €4 +0 ÐS.W.2d€229,€232„33€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€Mental€unsoundness€will€not€renderÏa€confession€invalid,€so€long€as€the€evidence€demonstrates€that€the€suspect€wasÐ 8¸.4 Ðcapable€of€understanding€and€waiving€his€rights.€€òòState€v.€Bellóó,€690€S.W.2d€879,€882Ð `  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).Ô‡ X‡§XXX‡§Ô€Ô#†X‡§XX X‡§mÞ#Ô€"Language€difficulties€encountered€by€a€defendant€areÐ , Ì Ðconsidered€in€determining€if€there€has€been€a€valid€waiver."€€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864Ð ø ˜ ÐS.W.2d€465,€473€(Tenn.€1993).€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€circumstances€involved€in€this€case€are€troublesome.€€This€deafÏdefendant€has€presented€proof€of€mental€illness€and€intoxication.€€In€addition,€theÏòòMirandaóó€warnings€were€administered€without€the€benefit€of€a€sign€languageÐ ô”  Ðinterpreter.€€These€factors€must€be€considered€when€reviewing€the€trial€court'sÏconclusion€that€the€waiver€of€rights€was€knowing€and€voluntary.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àDr.€Blair€testified€that€paranoid€schizophrenia€affected€the€defendant'sÏability€to€reason€and€comprehend.€€Dr.€Seger€testified€that€chronic€glue€sniffing€overÏa€long€period€of€time€exacerbated€paranoia€in€the€defendant€and€interfered€with€theÏeffectiveness€of€his€medications.€€Nonetheless,€the€defense€experts,€who€voicedÏ"grave€concerns"€about€his€ability€to€comprehend€his€rights,€were€unable€to€say€thatÏthe€defendant€had€not,€in€fact,€understood€his€rights.€€While€there€was€someÏindication€that€the€defendant€had€some€difficulty€reading€the€ñ°Fñòòñ°FñMirandañ°Fñóóñ°Fñ€warnings€andÐ ì'Œ" Ðexplaining€their€meaning,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€defendant's€mentalÏillness€did€not€affect€his€ability€to€understand€his€rights€or€voluntarily€waive€them.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àApparently,€the€defendant€had€sniffed€glue€throughout€the€day€andÏevening€up€to€the€time€of€the€shooting.€€Arresting€officers€recalled€that€the€defendantÏwas€under€the€influence€of€glue€when€arrested€and€that€the€odor€of€glue€emanatingÏfrom€the€defendant's€truck€was€"strong."€€Empty€tubes€of€glue€and€a€plastic€bag€ofÏglue€were€recovered€from€the€truck.€€The€defendant€maintained€that€had€it€not€beenÏfor€the€glue,€he€would€have€been€able€to€read€and€understand€the€òòMirandaóó€rights.€Ð 8¸.4 ÐHe€also€testified,€however,€that€the€effect€of€the€glue€was€"going€away"€at€about€2:30ÏA.M.,€when€he€read€the€waiver€of€rights€form.€€His€answers€were€generallyÏresponsive€and€coherent€despite€the€possibility€that,€according€to€Dr.€Seger,€theÏdefendant's€chronic€use€of€glue€may€have€reduced€his€cognitive€abilities.€€The€trialÏcourt€determined€that€the€defendant€possessed€above„average€intelligence€and€wasÏable€to€comprehend€questions€and€provide€intelligent€answers.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€he€did€not€fully€understand€his€ñªFñòòñªFñMirandañªFñóóñªFñÐ ô”  Ðwarnings€because€he€had€no€sign€language€interpreter.€€He€concedes€that€he€canÏread,€write,€and€read€lips€to€some€extent.€€He€testified€that€he€understands€theÏwritten€word€and€sign€language€"the€same."€€The€trial€judge,€who€heard€all€theÏtestimony,€ruled€that€the€defendant€was€capable€of€understanding€and€in€fact€didÏunderstand€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€In€consequence,€we€find€that€the€greater€weight€ofÐ ð Ðthe€evidence€supports€the€trial€court's€conclusions€that€the€defendant's€waiver€wasÏknowing€and€voluntary€and€that€he€was€not€so€intoxicated€nor€mentally€unsound€as€œÌñ§Fñ›ñnFñÐ  T$ô ÐñnFññ§Fñto›€render€the€confession€inadmissible.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð T$ô ÐÌÔ‡ X‡§XXX‡§Ôà Œ àà ä àÔ#†X‡§XX X‡§âë#Ôà@††/ÚàIIIˆÐ ì'Œ" Ðà Œ àà ä àBy€challenging€the€constitutionality€of€portions€of€the€statute€governingÐ ¸)X $ Ðthe€defense€of€insanity,€the€defendant€presents€issues€of€first€impression.€€òòSeeóóÐ `  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501.€€The€defendant€argues€that€subpart€(a),€whichÏrequires€the€defendant€to€prove€insanity€by€clear€and€convincing€proof,Ïunconstitutionally€shifts€the€burden€of€proof€to€the€defendant.€€He€maintains€thatÏsubpart€(c),€which€prohibits€an€expert€witness€from€testifying€that€the€defendant€wasÏor€was€not€insane,€unconstitutionally€limits€his€ability€to€present€a€defense.€ÏUltimately,€the€defendant€complains€of€a€denial€of€due€process.€€The€state'sÏresponse€is€twofold:€€first,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€found€constitutionalÏsimilar€statutes€placing€the€burden€of€proof€on€the€defendant;€and€second,€theÏdefendant€lacks€standing€to€challenge€subpart€(c)€or,€if€the€defendant€has€standing,Ïlimiting€expert€testimony€on€the€ultimate€issue€passes€constitutional€muster.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àWhen€this€issue€was€argued€at€the€pretrial€hearing,€the€trial€court€ruledÏthat€the€statute€was€constitutional,€as€follows:Ó²ÓÌÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWith€regard€to€Section€(a)€...€I€believe€there€are€two€orÏthree€U.S.€Supreme€Court€cases€that€have€ruled€thatÏshifting€the€burden€of€proving€insanity€to€the€defendantÏdoes€not€violate€the€United€States€Constitution.€€I€am€notÏaware€of€any€difference€in€our€Tennessee€Constitution€ofÏ1870€that€would€require€a€different€ruling.€...€€Insanity€wasÏnot€a€defense€prior€to€òòM[']Na[]ghtenóó.€€And€it€was€createdÐ ì'Œ" Ðby€the€House€of€Lords€in€the€case€and€has€been,€I€think,Ïabolished€in€some€states.€€So€it's€not€a€ConstitutionalÏright€one€way€or€the€other.€€Therefore,€the€Court€does€notÏfind€Section€(a)€to€be€unconstitutional.€€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà@ee/Úà***ˆÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < àYou€gentlemen€know€what€it€is€to€prove€aÏcircumstantial€case.€€It€means€that€you€can't€ask€oneÏquestion.€€It€does€not€mean€that€you€cannot€ask€sixteenÏquestions€and€get€the€same€results€in€front€of€the€jury.€ÏSimply,€circumstantially€prove,€by€questions€asked€theÏwitness,€"Was€he€able€to€do€this?€€Was€he€able€toÏcomprehend€that?"€and€so€forth,€to€convince€the€jury€ofÏthis€final€question€of€whether€the€defendant€couldÏappreciate€the€nature€or€wrongfulness€of€his€act.€€It€can'tÏbe€done€in€one€question,€but€it€can€be€done€in€several.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < àIt€does€not€prohibit€this€defense.€€It€does€notÏprohibit€expert€testimony€of€this€defense.€€It€just€makes€itÏharder.€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < àTherefore,€the€Court€rules€that€Section€(c),Ð þ8ž/5 Ðlikewise,€is€constitutional,€and€the€motion€is€respectfullyÏdenied.ÓñÓÐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐAt€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€court€ruled€as€the€thirteenth€juror€that€theÏdefendant€had€proved€insanity€only€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€and€not€byÏclear€and€convincing€evidence.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àUntil€1995,€the€statutory€definition€for€insanity€was€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àInsanity.--(a)€Insanity€is€a€defense€to€prosecution€if,€atÏthe€time€of€such€conduct,€as€a€result€of€mental€disease€orÏdefect,€the€person€lacked€substantial€capacity€either€toÏappreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€the€person's€conduct€or€toÏconform€that€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€law.€€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à€€€(b)€As€used€in€this€section,€"mental€disease€or€defect"Ïdoes€not€include€any€abnormality€manifested€only€byÏrepeated€criminal€or€otherwise€antisocial€conduct.€€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓùøÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-11-501€(Repealed€1995).€€Moreover,€until€1995,€expertÏwitnesses€could€testify€to€an€ultimate€issue,€including€that€of€the€defendant's€mentalÏresponsibility.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€704.€€In€1995,€our€legislature€amended€the€insanityÏstatute€in€its€entirety,€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à€€€(a)€€It€is€an€affirmative€defense€to€prosecution€that,€atÏthe€time€of€the€commission€of€the€acts€constituting€theÏoffense,€the€defendant,€as€a€result€of€a€severe€mentalÏdisease€or€defect,€was€unable€to€appreciate€the€nature€orÏwrongfulness€of€such€defendant's€acts.€€Mental€diseaseÏor€defect€does€not€otherwise€constitute€a€defense.€€òòTheÐ ¸)X $ Ðdefendant€has€the€burden€of€proving€the€defense€ofÏinsanity€by€clear€and€convincing€evidenceóó.€€Ð„+$"&ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à€€€(b)€€As€used€in€this€section,€"mental€disease€or€defect"Ïdoes€not€include€any€abnormality€manifested€only€byÏrepeated€criminal€or€otherwise€antisocial€conduct.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ЀÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à€€€(c)€€òòNo€expert€witness€may€testify€as€to€whether€theÐ è0ˆ', Ðdefendant€was€or€was€not€insane€as€set€forth€inÏsubsection€(a)óó.€€Such€ultimate€issue€is€a€matter€for€theÐ ´2T). Ðtrier€of€fact€alone.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓmüÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501€(emphasis€added).€€Although€Rule€704,€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.,€was€not€amended€to€preclude€expert€testimony€on€the€ultimate€issue€ofÏinsanity,€the€1996€Advisory€Commission€Comments€recognize€that€such€testimonyÐ þ8ž/5 Ðhas€been€restricted€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501.€€It€is€well€established€thatÏa€specific€provision€relating€to€a€particular€subject€controls€and€takes€precedenceÏover€a€general€provision€applicable€to€a€multitude€of€subjects.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€897Ð ø ˜ ÐS.W.2d€€680,€683€(Tenn.€1995).€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€ruled€that€a€state€may€require€aÏdefendant€to€prove€the€defense€of€insanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€withoutÏresulting€in€a€denial€of€due€process€under€the€federal€constitution.€€òòLeland€v.Ð ô”  ÐOregonóó,€343€U.S.€790€(1952).€€"It€is€axiomatic,€therefore,€that€a€lesser€standard€ofÐ À` Ðproof,€such€as€the€clear€and€convincing€standard,€may€be€imposed."€€òòUnited€StatesÐ Œ, Ðv.€Amosóó,€803€F.2d€419,€421€(8th€Cir.€1986).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Freemanóó,Ð Xø Ð804€F.2d€1574€(11th€Cir.€1986).€€In€òòFreemanóó,€the€defendant€challenged€the€burdenÐ $Ä Ðof€proving€insanity€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€under€the€Insanity€DefenseÏReform€Act€of€1984.€€The€Circuit€Court€held€that€the€rule€announced€in€òòLelandóóÐ ¼ \ Ðcompelled€a€determination€that€the€clear€and€convincing€evidence€standard€wasÏconstitutional.€€804€F.2d€at€1576.€€The€Insanity€Defense€Reform€Act€of€1984€isÏsimilar€to€the€statute€challenged€by€the€defendant.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  &À  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€cites€no€authority€that€would€require€a€different€resultÏunder€the€constitution€of€our€state.€€Instead,€he€argues€that€the€ruling€in€òòLelandóó€isÐ „+$"& Ðcalled€into€question€by€the€Supreme€Court's€more€recent€holding€òòCooper€v.Ð P-ð#( ÐOklahomaóó,€517€U.S.€348,€116€S.€Ct.€1373€(1996).€€We€disagree.€€òòCooperóó€holds€thatÐ /¼%* Ða€defendant€may€not€be€required€to€prove€incompetency€to€stand€trial€under€theÐ è0ˆ', Ðclear€and€convincing€standard€because€to€do€so€is€"incompatible€with€the€dictates€ofÏdue€process."€€òòCooperóó,€116€S.€Ct.€at€1384.€€The€Court€reasoned€that€historic€andÐ , Ì Ðmodern€practice€as€well€as€the€fundamental€interest€at€stake€required€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€standard€rather€than€one€of€clear€and€convincingÏevidence€for€competency€determinations.€€òòCooperóó,€116€S.€Ct.€at€1377.€Ð 0 ÐÌà Œ àà ä àHere,€the€defendant€contends€that€requiring€him€to€prove€insanity€byÏclear€and€convincing€evidence€"violates€a€fundamental€principle€of€justice€when€...Ïthe€defendant€showed€that€more€likely€than€not€he€was€insane€at€the€time€of€theÏcrime."€€We€disagree.€€The€Court€in€òòCooperóó€distinguished€the€nature€of€the€interestÐ Œ, Ðinvolved€in€proving€incompetency€from€the€burden€of€proof€and€procedural€burdensÏrequired€to€prove€insanity.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó,€116€S.€Ct.€at€1383€(òòcitingóó€òòPatterson€v.€New€Yorkóó,Ð $Ä Ð432€U.S.€197€(1977)).€€While€the€former€warrants€constitutional€protection€because€itÏis€a€fundamental€and€deeply€rooted€interest,€the€latter€is€simply€legislativelyÏestablished.€€òòId.óó€€We€must,€therefore,€reject€the€defendant's€contention€that€òòCooperóóÐ ˆ"( Ðrequires€a€different€result€and,€under€òòLelandóó,€we€uphold€the€constitutionality€ofÐ T$ô Ðsubpart€(a)€requiring€the€defendant€to€prove€insanity€by€clear€and€convincingÏevidence.Ì€€Ìà Œ àà ä àNext,€the€defendant€challenges€subpart€(c)€of€the€statute.€€In€response,Ïthe€state€contends€that€the€defendant€has€no€standing€to€challenge€the€statute€andÏthat€a€similar€federal€rule€limiting€expert€testimony€on€the€ultimate€issue€has€beenÏdeclared€constitutional.€€"[A]€person€has€no€standing€to€contest€the€constitutionalityÏof€a€statutory€provision€unless€the€provision[]€he€claims€to€be€deficient€has€beenÏused€to€deprive€him€of€his€rights."€€òòState€v.€Purkeyóó,€689€S.W.2d€196,€201€(Tenn.Ð €4 +0 ÐCrim.€App.€1984);€òòState€v.€Vanzantóó,€659€S.W.2d€816€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983);€òòStateÐ L6ì,2 Ðv.€Pritchettóó,€621€S.W.2d€127€(Tenn.€1981).€€Although€Dr.€Blair€ultimately€determinedÐ 8¸.4 Ðthat€this€was€a€case€in€which€the€evidence€supported€an€insanity€defense,€she€wasÏnot€permitted€to€testify€that€the€defendant€was€"insane"€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€InÏour€assessment,€the€defendant€has€standing.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€his€argument€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501(c)Ïunconstitutionally€restricts€the€defense€from€presenting€evidence€to€disprove€theÏmental€element€of€the€offense,€the€defendant€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Phippsóó,€883Ð (È  ÐS.W.2d€138€(Tenn.€1994).€€In€òòPhippsóó,€this€court€held€that€a€defendant€has€aÐ ô”  Ðconstitutional€right€to€present€evidence€regarding€his€state€of€mind€at€the€time€of€theÏoffense.€€883€S.W.2d€at€148„49.€€The€evidence€must€be€relevant€to€a€mentalÏdisease€or€defect€and€demonstrate€a€lack€of€capacity€to€form€the€required€mentalÏstate.€€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679,€689„90€(Tenn.€1997).€€While€this€courtÐ $Ä Ðrecognizes€that€the€defendant€has€a€constitutional€right€to€present€evidence€toÏnegate€an€element€of€the€offense,€the€presentation€of€evidence€is€also€subject€toÏreasonable€limitation€by€the€trial€court.€€òòPhippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€149€(citing€U.S.Ð ˆ"( ÐConst.€Amend.€V,€VI,€XIV;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„201(a));€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,Ð T$ô Ð898€S.W.2d€161,€172€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àInitially,€federal€circuit€courts€have€upheld€the€constitutionality€of€theÏRule€704(b),€Federal€Rules€of€Evidence,€which€restricts€expert€testimony€as€to€theÏultimate€issue€of€insanity.€€The€Eleventh€Circuit€determined€that€the€rule€appliedÏequally€to€the€state€and€defense€and€did€not€prevent€the€defendant€from€presentingÏevidence.€€òòFreemanóó,€804€F.2d€at€1576;€òòaccordóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Blumbergóó,€961€F.2dÐ è0ˆ', Ð787,€789„90€(8th€Cir.€1992).€€In€òòBlumbergóó,€the€Eighth€Circuit€held€that€Rule€704(b),Ð ´2T). ÐFed.€R.€Evid.,€does€not€offend€due€process€or€equal€protection€because€the€ruleÏdoes€not€exclude€evidence€and€because€the€right€to€present€witnesses,€althoughÏfundamental,€is€also€limited:€€"Congress€amended€Rule€704(b)€'to€eliminate€theÐ 8¸.4 Ðconfusing€spectacle€of€competing€expert€witnesses€[giving]€directly€contradictoryÏconclusions€[about]€the€ultimate€legal€issue€to€be€found€by€the€trier€of€fact.'"€€òòId.óó€atÐ , Ì Ð790€(quoting€S.Rep.€No.€225,€98th€Cong.,€Ist.€Sess.€230,€òòreprinted€inóó€1984Ð ø ˜ ÐU.S.C.C.A.N.€€3182,€3412)€(alterations€in€original).€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àSecond,€this€court€must€construe€subpart€(c)€narrowly€because€of€theÏinterests€at€stake.€€Although€subpart€(c)€precludes€an€expert€from€testifying€that€theÏdefendant€was,€in€fact,€legally€"insane"€at€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€offense,Ïthe€expert€may€testify€that€the€defendant€suffered€from€a€severe€mental€disease€orÏdefect.€€The€expert€may€also€state€whether€the€defendant€could€have€appreciatedÏthe€nature€or€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€Subpart€(c),Ïhowever,€does€prevent€the€expert€from€stating€that€the€severe€mental€disease€orÏdefect€operated€to€prevent€the€defendant€from€appreciating€the€nature€orÏwrongfulness€of€his€conduct.€€In€that€regard,€the€jury€must€render€the€ultimateÏdetermination€as€to€the€effect€of€mental€disease€on€the€defendant's€understanding€ofÏhis€conduct€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€summary,€the€clear€and€convincing€standard€does€not€deprive€theÏdefendant€of€due€process.€€Moreover,€the€provision€prohibiting€expert€testimony€onÏthe€ultimate€issue€of€insanity€does€not€deny€the€defendant€his€right€to€present€aÏdefense.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ìà Œ àà ä àÌÓÓÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à__________________________________Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àGary€R.€Wade,€Presiding€JudgeÌœñ¨FñÐ  27Ò-3 Ðñ¨Fññ©Fñ›Ìñ©FñCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________Ìœñ±FñJohn€H.€Peayñ±Fññ±Fñ›Thomas›€T.›€Woodñ±Fññ±Fññ±Fññ±Fñallñ±Fñ,›€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJames€Curwood€Witt,€Jr.,€Judge