ÿWPCÑ  uÏîpr.â¡yã-ÙëäBÎo¨ Z4W‹<4ø¶ …»ÒT¢? IF‡ƒ;¸щ6-½H¼B’nñ™ËGË“A ¯6o¼´d£’Wšœiåãj¼ ^|qQ-ª¶"‰°BNE K2 ·KâMséL\ó«ÔÂ=JhíŸÁœ~~n´QT¯ _J¶,M_lñ0xì…pj˜« œéú"‰® kß>Ûô€Ö+«P¥·J´¤€=ßuÙXŠiÐ^òúhþv⹦ÇeÈI '–‘ùô;Þ0Šº w®ŸN•¤ µ¸á.›ÂAjø+RJRu—7å§28U¹q5c³º}7øÏ{)ƒés‹N½M}I;å`ÑAÍ`³$¼v”ПP™³/J°Vç<ð¨æê¦çXU^›÷¢ÓÔüË— t¾¬Açå±°Ýb9ýª¡Z&õØb#Á\ % # 0ˆ' U'N¯ ^ ý w  z Ò‡4Ym| m~Æ•Æ[Æ!ÆçU@­Ní 1ï 0D|EÀ 72 1uô 72i 0c› 0wþ 0Šu 1ÿ 72Œ 0 ¾ 1^ 72ë 1 72ªÜ†òUNxxxxxxxxbÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆ 0ëÎÎÎÎ B¹¹ 0¤Ö D3z D-­ 0KÚÚ AS%Æx 0¤> 0Dâ A«& ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0» €BIVENS wittBivensFaheyMcMinn T.J.BenjieMcCardleParrisFerbyArnwineWilkersonJorgensonBurlisonDakinGennoepresentenceSheltonAshbyHoxieT.C.A. TBIMcKnight W]ev.TroutmanLetiviasGeise PeayScruggsBaughBarringerDickersonRickyveniress]election acceptablitityconclusory P]remeditationBeasleyCozzolinoYarbroDevilles]ince*underrepresentationAdkinsLorcin Rena unfavorability Evid P.J.(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularm€ )  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÖJ~'ç 3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman 0ÖýCEMU]emu}AutoList1(a)(1)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(a)3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à0¶ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList2(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(xir$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à0÷ CEMU]emu}AutoList3(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a) (a)0ÖÙCEMU]emu}AutoList4(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)"(1) Ñ ° Ñ Ð  ' ib304k90ib304k9 .   (ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù-(|G29û$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Xð»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X'X»»Ô d(|3”$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Xð»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3”$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Xð»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Xð»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼Xð»»»ÔÑ8€'XXdæ»»d8ÑÑ€$OYÑ€à@HHìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@§§$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ ¾ Ðà@__ ìàNOVEMBER€1999€SESSIONˆÐ Ì ÐÔ‡X'X»¼XðÔÌò òÔ#†¼Xð»XX'º#ÔÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€òòóóv.€LETIVIAS€PRINCEòòóóÔ‡X'X»¼XðÔó óÐ À ÐÓÓÌà@£ £ ìàò ò€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyˆÐ ´  Ðà@: : ìàNo.€I„497„141€€€Donald€P.€Harris,€Judge€ˆÐ š ê ÐÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<e ` A߈Ð f ¶  ÐÌà@³ ³ ìàNo.€M1998„00005„CCA„R3„CDÔ#†¼Xð»XX'=#ÔÔ‡X'X»¼XðÔ€„€Filed€August€10,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_Ô€ˆÐ [«  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<&` AßÐ 'w  Ðó óÌThe€defendant,€Letivias€Prince,€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€and€was€sentenced€to€lifeÐ l  Ðimprisonment.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€jury€pool€did€not€adequately€represent€theÐ R  Ðracial€makeup€of€the€community;€that€pre„trial€publicity€deprived€him€of€a€fair€trial;€that€the€trialÐ è8 Ðcourt€erred€by€permitting€eight€peremptory€challenges€in€jury€selection;€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÐ Î Ðallowing€the€state€to€either€call€a€rebuttal€witness€or€receive€a€missing€witness€instruction;€that€theÐ ´ Ðtrial€court€erred€by€instructing€the€jury€regarding€the€order€of€consideration€of€offenses;€and€that€theÐ šê Ðevidence€was€insufficient€to€sustain€his€conviction.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð €Ð ЀÌò òà@! ! ìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmed.ó óˆÐ Lœ ÐÌòòGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.,€Ô#†¼Xð»àX'ô#ÔÔ‡X'X.¼XðÔóódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJohn€H.€Peayóó€and€òòNorma€McGeeÐ h ÐOgleóóÔ#†¼Xð»XX'°#ÔÔ‡X'X»¼XðÔ,€JJ.,€joined.Ð þN ÐÌMark€C.€Scruggs,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Letivias€Prince.Ð Ê ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Lucian€D.€Geise,€Assistant€Attorney€General,Ð –æ ÐJoseph€Baugh€and€John€Barringer,€Assistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€ofÐ |Ì ÐTennessee.Ð b ²  ÐÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Xð»XX'c #ÔÔ‡X'X»¼XðԈР."~" Ðà  àà ` àÌòòóóÔ#†¼Xð»XX'O #ÔÔ€X'X»¼XðÔÔ‡X'XXX'Ôà  àThe€defendant,€Letivias€Prince,€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€in€the€shooting€deathÐ ú#J$ Ðof€Richard€Clinton€Fly.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€toÐ à$0 % Ðlife€imprisonment.€€In€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issuesÐ Æ%!& Ðfor€review:Ð ¬&ü!' ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€whether€the€defendant€was€deprived€of€a€fair€trial€because€the€juryÐ x(È#) Ðdid€not€represent€a€fair€cross„section€of€the€community€due€to€theÐ ^)®$* Ðsystematic€exclusion€of€blacks€from€the€jury€pool;ÐD*”%+` x` x ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à(2)€whether€pretrial€publicity€surrounding€the€defendant's€trial€Ð,`'-` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àdeprived€him€of€a€fair€trial;Ð ö,F(. ÐÐ Ü-,)/ý  ÐÔ_Ôà  àà ` à(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€defendant€Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àeight€peremptory€challenges€in€the€jury€selection€process;Ð –æ ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÔ#†X'XXX'å #ÔÔ‡X'XXX'Ô€allowing€the€state€to€chooseÐb²` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àbetween€a€missing€witness€instruction€or€calling€a€rebuttal€witness;Ð H˜ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` à(5)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€instructing€the€jury€regarding€Ð  d Ðà  àà ` àthe€order€of€consideration€of€offenses;€andÐ ú J ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(6)€whether€the€evidence€of€premeditation€was€sufficient€to€supportÐ Æ   Ðhis€conviction.Ô#†X'XXX'Ö#ÔÔ‡X'XXX'Ô€€Ð¬ ü ` x` x ÐÌà8  àBecause€we€find€no€reversible€error,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÐxÈ Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àAt€approximately€10:30€P.M.€on€March€8,€1997,€Joel€Dickerson,€directed€by€the€victim,Ð D”  ÐRicky€Fly,€drove€to€an€area€of€Franklin€to€purchase€crack€cocaine.€€After€circling€the€block€severalÐ *z  Ðtimes,€they€stopped€at€a€street€corner€to€ask€a€"large€black€man"€for€a€"twenty."€€When€the€manÐ ` Ðresponded€that€there€was€"nothing€going€on,"€they€drove€away.€€As€they€approached€the€intersectionÐ öF Ðof€Glass€and€Eleventh,€Dickerson€heard€between€four€and€six€successive€gunshots€which€seemed€toÐ Ü, Ðbe€coming€from€some€bushes€behind€his€truck.€€Fly€was€struck€in€the€back€of€the€head€by€a€bulletÐ Â Ðwhich€came€through€the€rear€window.€€Dickerson€drove€to€a€nearby€gas€station€and€called€911.€Ð ¨ø ÐNeither€Dickerson€nor€the€victim€were€armed.€€Dickerson€did€have€a€small€pocket€knife€stored€in€hisÐ ŽÞ Ðglove€compartment.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àPolice€immediately€identified€the€defendant€as€a€suspect.€€Several€hours€later,€he€was€foundÐ @ Ðhiding€in€a€vehicle.€€The€defendant€initially€denied€any€involvement€in€the€shooting,€but€later€tookÐ &v Ðofficers€to€the€crime€scene€and€admitted€that€he€had€fired€at€the€truck.€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àWhen€interviewed€by€the€police,€the€defendant€stated€that€two€white€men€in€a€truck€hadÐ Ø( Ðdriven€through€the€area€asking€for€crack€cocaine.€€The€defendant€stated€that€he€and€his€companionsÐ ¾ Ðhad€informed€the€men€that€they€did€not€sell€drugs.€€He€claimed€that€the€two€men€threatened€to€shootÐ ¤ô Ðthem€and€then€drove€away.€€He€contended€that€the€two€men€came€around€the€block€again€andÐ Š Ú Ðappeared€to€be€throwing€bottles€from€the€truck.€€The€defendant€told€police€that€he€shot€at€the€truckÐ p!À  Ðin€order€to€frighten€the€men.€€He€claimed€that€after€he€fired€the€shots,€he€took€the€weapon€to€his€homeÐ V"¦! Ðand€hid€it€under€a€mattress.€€The€police€recovered€a€Lorcin€.380€semiautomatic€pistol€from€theÐ <#Œ" Ðdefendant's€step„grandfather€at€the€defendant's€residence.€€Ð "$r# ÐÌà  àAt€the€trial,€Marcus€Cannon,€who€was€standing€at€the€corner€of€Glass€Street€and€NinthÐ î%>!% ÐAvenue,€testified€that€the€men€in€the€truck€also€asked€him€to€sell€them€some€drugs.€€He€claimed€thatÐ Ô&$"& Ðwhen€he€informed€them€that€he€had€none,€they€threatened€to€kill€someone.€€Cannon€contended€thatÐ º' #' Ðhe€warned€the€defendant€and€his€friends€about€the€two€men.€€Defense€witnesses€claimed€that€the€twoÐ  (ð#( Ðmen€in€the€truck€turned€off€the€lights€as€if€to€do€a€"drive€by€shooting"€on€their€third€trip€around€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðblock.€Ð l*¼%* ЀÌà  àDickerson's€truck€contained€four€different€bullet€holes.€€Two€bullets€were€imbedded€in€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðtruck,€one€in€the€passenger€door,€and€another€in€the€left€rear€wheel€well.€€One€bullet€and€seven€leadÐ ° Ðbullet€jackets€were€recovered€from€the€scene€of€the€shooting.€€The€state's€expert€testimonyÐ –æ Ðestablished€that€all€three€bullets€and€four€of€the€seven€shells€had€been€fired€from€the€Lorcin€.380Ð |Ì Ðpistol.€€The€other€three€shells€were€very€close€to€a€match.€€Other€than€Dickerson's€small€pocket€knifeÐ b² Ðlocated€in€the€glove€compartment,€there€were€no€weapons€in€the€truck.€€€€Ô#†X'XXX'##ÔÔ‡X'XXX'ÔÐ H˜ Ðà  àà ` àÔ#†X'XXX'é!#ÔÔ‡X'XXX'ÔÌà@ËË*ìàIˆÐ  d ÐÌà  àThe€defendant,€who€is€African„American,€argues€that€he€was€deprived€of€his€right€to€a€fairÐ à 0 Ðtrial€through€the€"systematic€exclusion€of€blacks€from€the€jury€pool€in€Williamson€County,Ð Æ   ÐTennessee."€€His€contention€is€that€"the€lack€of€blacks€within€the€jury€pool€almost€guaranteed"€hisÐ ¬ ü  Ðconviction.€€Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àThe€statistics€contained€in€the€record€regarding€Williamson€County€reveal€that€in€1997,Ð ^®  ÐAfrican„Americans€made€up€approximately€five€percent€of€the€drivers'€license€pool.€€The€overallÐ D”  Ðpercentage€of€African„Americans€in€the€general€population€in€1996€was€seven€percent.€€It€is€theÐ *z  Ðdefendant's€position€that€a€broader€statistical€base€should€have€been€used€from€which€his€jury€wasÐ ` Ðselected.€€The€defendant€insists€that€the€venire€should€have€encompassed€nearby€Davidson€County,Ð öF Ðwhich€is€25€percent€African„American,€so€that€he€had€"a€fair€cross„section€of€the€community€inÐ Ü, Ðselecting€a€jury."€€As€support€of€his€claim,€the€defendant€submitted€the€affidavit€of€a€black€juror,€whoÐ Â Ðswore€that€the€racial€composition€of€the€jury€had€an€effect€on€the€disposition€of€the€case.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àArticle€I,€Section€9€guarantees€all€criminal€defendants€a€right€to€a€jury€from€"the€County€inÐ tÄ Ðwhich€the€crime€shall€have€been€committed."€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Upchurchóó,€620€S.W.2d€540,€542€(Tenn.Ð Zª ÐCrim.€App.€1980)€(stating€that€"an€accused€must€be€tried€in€the€county€in€which€the€crimes€areÐ @ Ðalleged€to€have€been€committed.").€€Moreover,€a€criminal€defendant€has€a€constitutional€right€to€aÐ &v Ðjury€drawn€from€a€venire€that€represents€a€fair€cross„section€of€the€community.€€"[S]election€of€a€petitÐ  \ Ðjury€from€a€representative€cross„section€of€the€community€is€an€essential€component€of€the€SixthÐ òB ÐAmendment€right€to€a€jury€trial."€€òòState€v.€Bellóó,€745€S.W.2d€858,€860€(Tenn.€1988)€(citing€òòTaylorÐ Ø( Ðv.€Louisianaóó,€419€U.S.€522€(1975)).€€€In€òòDuren€v.€Missourióó,€439€U.S.€357€€(1979),€the€United€StatesÐ ¾ ÐSupreme€Court€listed€the€criteria€for€establishing€a€prima€facie€violation€of€the€requirement€of€a€fair„Ð ¤ô Ðcross€section:Ð Š Ú ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€the€group€alleged€to€be€excluded€is€a€"distinctive€group"€withinÐV"¦!` x` x Ðà  àà ` àthe€community;Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€the€representation€of€the€group€in€venires€from€which€juries€areÐ %X $ Ðselected€is€not€fair€and€reasonable€in€relation€to€the€number€of€suchÐ î%>!% Ðpersons€in€the€community;€andÐÔ&$"&` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)€this€underrepresentation€is€due€to€systematic€exclusion€of€theÐ  (ð#( Ðgroup€in€the€jury€selection€process.€Ð†)Ö$)` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€364;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,€610€(Tenn.€1984);€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2dÐ R+¢&+ Ð334€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€òòapp.óó€òòdismissedóó€(Tenn.,€Aug.€25,€1995).òòóó€€Ð 8,ˆ', Їà  àClearly,€the€African„American€population€of€Williamson€County€represents€a€distinctiveÐ ° Ðgroup€in€the€community.€€The€defendant,Ô#†X'XXX'X"#ÔÔ‡X'XXX'Ô€however,€has€not€established€that€the€representation€ofÐ –æ ÐAfrican„Americans€on€the€venire€from€which€his€jury€was€selected€was€unfair€or€unreasonable.€Ð |Ì ÐLikewise,€there€is€no€showing€that€the€jury€selection€process€in€Williamson€County€resulted€inÐ b² Ðunderrepresentation€of€blacks€due€to€systematic€exclusion.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€record€indicates€that€in€1996,€seven€percent€of€the€total€Williamson€County€populationÐ  d Ðwas€African„American.€€One€year€later,€Ô#†X'XXX'›0#ÔÔ‡X'XXX'Ôat€the€time€of€the€defendant's€trial,€African„€Americans€madeÐ ú J Ðup€five€percent€of€the€drivers'€license€pool€from€which€jurors€were€drawn€in€Williamson€County.€Ð à 0 ÐIn€his€brief,€the€defendant€estimates€that€only€five€of€the€60€to€75€potential€jurors€were€black.€€BasedÐ Æ   Ðupon€the€defendant's€own€estimates,€African„Americans€on€the€venire€ranged€between€6.6€and€8.3Ð ¬ ü  Ðpercent,€a€fair€representation€of€the€county€as€a€whole.€€Notwithstanding€these€figures,€the€defendantÐ ’â  Ðargues€that€the€Williamson€County€trial€court€should€have€attempted€to€achieve€a€higher€ratio€ofÐ xÈ  Ðblack€potential€jurors€by€drawing€from€Davidson€County,€a€bordering€county,€but€one€outside€of€"theÐ ^®  Ðcommunity,"€by€the€traditional€definition.€€The€defendant€has€not€cited,€nor€has€this€court€found,€anyÐ D”  Ðauthority€for€such€a€proposition.€€In€our€view,€the€trial€court's€procedures€did€not€systematicallyÐ *z  Ðexclude€the€black€segment€of€the€population€and€the€jury€venire€represented€a€statisticallyÐ ` Ðappropriate€cross„section€of€the€Williamson€County€community.€€€€€€€€€Ð öF Ðà  àà ` àÌà@ªª)ìàIIˆÐ  ÐÌà  à€Next,€the€defendant€argues€that€pretrial€publicity,€including€several€newspaper€articles€whichÐ ŽÞ Ðwere€published€in€the€days€leading€up€to€his€trial€and€which€included€his€prior€criminal€record,Ð tÄ Ðdeprived€him€of€a€fair€trial.€€The€defendant€cites€no€legal€authority€for€his€argument.€€He€merelyÐ Zª Ðargues€that€it€"would€not€have€been€humanly€possible€for€the€prospective€jurors€to€have€not€eitherÐ @ Ðread€or€heard€about€.€.€.€the€Defendant's€criminal€record€prior€to€the€commencement€of€the€trial."€€TheÐ &v Ðdefendant€did€not€include€copies€of€the€newspaper€articles€in€the€record.€€Moreover,€the€defendantÐ  \ Ðdid€not€move€the€trial€court€for€a€change€of€venue,€which€would€have€been€the€proper€remedy€in€theÐ òB Ðevent€of€excessive€pretrial€publicity.€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722€(Tenn.€1994).Ô#†X'XXX'3#ÔÔ‡X'XXX'ÔÐ Ø( Ѐ€€€Ð ¾ Ðà  àAs€previously€stated,€Article€I,€section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€guarantees€"the€rightÐ ¤ô Ð.€.€.€to€a€speedy€public€trial€.€.€.€[by]€an€impartial€jury."€€"The€challenge€for€cause€was€designed€toÐ Š Ú Ðexclude€from€the€jury€triers€whose€bias€or€prejudice€rendered€them€unfit€.€.€.€."€€òòManning€v.€Stateóó,Ð p!À  Ð155€Tenn.€266,€292€S.W.2d€451,€455€(1927).€€Rule€24(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÐ V"¦! ÐProcedureÔ#†X'XXX'<#ÔÔ‡X'XXX'Ô€provides€that€"[i]f€the€trial€judge,€after€examination€of€any€juror,€is€of€the€opinion€thatÐ <#Œ" Ðgrounds€for€challenge€for€cause€are€present,€the€judge€shall€excuse€that€juror€from€the€trial€of€theÐ "$r# Ðcase."€€A€party€may€challenge€a€prospective€juror€for€cause€if€the€"prospective€juror's€exposure€toÐ %X $ Ðpotentially€prejudicial€information€makes€the€person€unacceptable€as€a€juror."€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ð î%>!% Ð24(b)(2).€€The€rule€further€provides€as€follows:€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àBoth€the€degree€of€exposure€and€the€prospective€juror's€testimony€asÐ  (ð#( Ðto€his€or€her€state€of€mind€shall€be€considered€in€determiningÐ †)Ö$) Ðacceptability.€€A€prospective€juror€who€states€that€he€or€she€will€beÐ l*¼%* Ðunable€to€overcome€preconceptions€shall€be€subject€to€challenge€forÐ R+¢&+ Ðcause€no€matter€how€slight€the€exposure.€€If€the€prospective€juror€hasÐ 8,ˆ', Ðseen€or€heard€and€remembers€information€that€will€be€developed€€inÐ ° Ðthe€course€of€trial,€or€that€may€be€inadmissible€but€is€not€soÐ –æ Ðprejudicial€as€to€create€a€substantial€risk€that€his€or€her€judgment€willÐ |Ì Ðbe€affected,€the€prospective€juror's€acceptablitity€shall€depend€onÐ b² Ðwhether€the€testimony€as€to€impartiality€is€believed.€€If€theÐ H˜ Ðprospective€juror€admits€to€having€formed€an€opinion,€he€or€she€shallÐ . ~ Ðbe€subject€to€challenge€for€cause€unless€the€examination€showsÐ  d Ðunequivocally€that€the€prospective€juror€can€be€impartial.Ðú J` x` x ÐÌòòId.óóÔ#†X'XXX'o>#ÔÔ‡X'XXX'Ô€€€Juror€qualification€rests€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€"the€trial€judge's€finding€aÐ Æ   Ðjuror€to€be€qualified€will€not€be€disturbed€on€review€except€on€the€clear€showing€of€an€abuse€ofÐ ¬ ü  Ðdiscretion."€€òòBurns€v.€Stateóó,€591€S.W.2d€780,€782€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àAlthough€jurors€may€be€excluded€for€cause€if€they€have€formed€an€opinion€which€willÐ ^®  Ðprevent€impartiality,€"[j]urors€need€not€be€totally€ignorant€of€the€facts€of€the€case€on€which€they€sitÐ D”  Ð[and€even]€the€formation€of€an€opinion€on€the€merits€will€not€disqualify€a€juror€if€[the€juror]€can€layÐ *z  Ðaside€[his€or€her]€opinion€and€render€a€verdict€based€on€the€evidence€presented€in€court."€€òòState€v.Ð ` ÐHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€249€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€made€theÐ öF Ðfollowing€observation:Ð Ü, ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€these€days€of€swift,€widespread€and€diverse€methods€ofÐ ¨ø Ðcommunication,€an€important€case€can€be€expected€to€arouse€theÐ ŽÞ Ðinterest€of€the€public€in€the€vicinity,€and€scarcely€any€of€those€bestÐ tÄ Ðqualified€to€serve€as€jurors€will€not€have€òòóóformed€some€impression€orÐ Zª Ðopinion€as€to€the€merits€of€the€case.€€This€is€particularly€true€inÐ @ Ðcriminal€cases.€€To€hold€that€the€mere€existence€of€any€preconceivedÐ &v Ðnotion€as€to€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€an€accused,€without€more,€isÐ  \ Ðsufficient€to€rebut€the€presumption€of€a€prospective€juror'sÐ òB Ðimpartiality€would€be€to€establish€an€impossible€standard.ÐØ(` x` x ÐÌòòIrvin€v.€Dowdóó,€366€U.S.€717,€722„23€(1961).€€Thus,€so€long€as€a€juror€may€set€aside€any€previouslyÐ ¤ô Ðformed€opinions€and€render€a€verdict€based€upon€the€evidence€presented€in€court,€the€juror€mayÐ Š Ú Ðproperly€sit€on€the€case.€€òòId.óóòòóóÐ p!À  ÐÌà  àHere,€the€trial€judge€allowed€extensive€voir€dire.€€Further,€any€juror€who€acknowledgedÐ <#Œ" Ðhaving€heard€or€read€about€the€case€was€individually€questioned€by€the€judge,€the€prosecution,€andÐ "$r# Ðdefense€counsel.€€Each€juror€stated€that€he€or€she€had€not€formed€an€opinion€about€the€case.€€In€lightÐ %X $ Ðof€their€assurances€of€impartiality,€the€fact€that€some€of€the€jurors€previously€had€heard€or€read€aboutÐ î%>!% Ðthe€defendant€does€not€disqualify€them€from€participation.€€In€our€view,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuseÐ Ô&$"& Ðits€discretion€by€its€approval€of€the€jury€panel.€Ð º' #' ÐÌà@‰‰)ìàIIIˆÐ †)Ö$) ÐÌà  àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€only€eight€peremptoryÐ R+¢&+ Ðchallenges.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€the€plain€language€of€the€statute€entitles€him€to€15€peremptoryÐ 8,ˆ', Ðchallenges.€€Specifically,€he€points€to€the€language€of€the€statute€which€states€that€a€defendantÐ ° Ð"charged€with€an€offense€punishable€by€death"€is€entitled€to€15€peremptory€challenges.Ô#†X'XXX'kE#ÔÔ‡X'XXX'ÔÐ –æ ÐÌà  àà ` àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„118€provides:Ð b² ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òPeremptory€challengesó ó.ð!ð€Notwithstanding€any€other€provision€ofÐ . ~ Ðlaw€or€rule€of€court€to€the€contrary,€in€any€case€in€which€a€defendantÐ  d Ðis€òòcharged€with€an€offense€punishable€by€deathóó,€such€defendant€isÐ ú J Ðentitled€to€fifteen€(15)€peremptory€challenges€and€the€state€is€entitledÐ à 0 Ðto€fifteen€(15)€peremptory€challenges€for€each€such€defendant.€€If€theÐ Æ   Ðoffense€charged€is€punishable€by€imprisonment€for€more€than€one€(1)Ð ¬ ü  Ðyear€but€not€by€death,€each€defendant€is€entitled€to€eight€(8)Ð ’â  Ðperemptory€challenges,€and€the€state€is€entitled€to€eight€(8)Ð xÈ  Ðperemptory€challenges€for€each€defendant.€€If€the€offense€charged€isÐ ^®  Ðpunishable€by€imprisonment€for€less€than€one€(1)€year€or€by€fine,€orÐ D”  Ðboth,€each€side€is€entitled€to€three€(3)€peremptory€challenges€for€eachÐ *z  Ðdefendant.€€à  àà h àÐ`` x` x ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„118€(emphasis€added).Ð Ü, ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Atkinsóó,€681€S.W.2d€571€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€105€S.€Ct.€1395Ð ¨ø Ð(1985),€this€court€concluded€that€where€the€death€penalty€is€not€to€be€submitted€for€the€jury'sÐ ŽÞ Ðconsideration,€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€only€eight€peremptory€challenges.€€Because€the€state€didÐ tÄ Ðnot€seek€the€death€penalty€in€this€case,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€permitting€the€defendant€onlyÐ Zª Ðeight€peremptory€challenges.Ð @ ÐòòóóÌÓ  Ó€Ô#†X'XXX'R#ÔÔ‡X'XXX'ÔIVÐ  \ ÐÌÓµYÓà  àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€state€the€opportunityÐ Ø( Ðto€either€call€its€ballistics€expert,€Steve€Scott,€as€a€rebuttal€witness€or€receive€the€benefit€of€a€missingÐ ¾ Ðwitness€jury€instruction€due€to€the€failure€of€the€defendant's€ballistics€expert,€Robert€Goodwin,€toÐ ¤ô Ðtestify.€Ð Š Ú ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€offered€by€the€state€established€that€the€victim€was€killed€by€a€bullet€fired€fromÐ V"¦! Ða€large€caliber€pistol,€such€as€a€.380.€€A€Lorcin€.380€was€recovered€from€the€defendant's€residence.€Ð <#Œ" ÐThe€state's€ballistics€expert€testified€that€the€bullet€found€in€the€area€of€the€shooting€and€the€bulletsÐ "$r# Ðfound€embedded€in€the€truck€in€which€the€victim€was€riding€were€fired€from€the€defendant's€gun.€Ð %X $ ÐA€defense€witness,€Rena€Prince,€testified€that€Marcus€Cannon€asked€her€to€hold€a€"similar"€pistolÐ î%>!% Ðsometime€after€the€shooting€on€the€night€of€the€crime.€€She€claimed€that€Cannon's€pistol€was€not€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðsame€as€that€recovered€from€the€defendant's€residence.€€Ô#†X'XXX'åY#ÔÔ‡&X'XXX'ÔAccording€to€Ms.€Prince,€she€was€at€theÐ º' #' ÐAmerican€Legion€Club€near€the€women's€room€when€Marcus€Cannon€entered€the€club€followed€byÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€police.€€She€testified€that€as€officers€moved€closer€to€Cannon,€he€ran€to€her,€and€handed€her€aÐ †)Ö$) Ðgun,€saying,€"Auntie,€take€this."€€She€put€the€gun€in€her€pocket€and€held€it€for€Cannon€forÐ l*¼%* Ðapproximately€five€minutes.€€Cannon€then€retrieved€the€gun€and€left€through€the€back€door.€€Ms.Ð R+¢&+ ÐPrince€described€the€gun€given€to€her€by€Cannon€as€being€black,€heavy,€and€having€a€length€ofÐ 8,ˆ', Ðapproximately€five€inches€long.€€The€gun€given€to€her€by€Cannon€was€not€the€same€gun€put€intoÐ ° Ðevidence€by€the€state.€€It€was€simply€described€as€"similar."Ô#†X'XX&X'ù^#ÔÔ‡X'XXX'ÔÐ –æ ÐÌà  àÔ#†X'XXX'cb#ÔUpon€the€close€of€the€defendant's€proof,€the€state€sought€to€rebut€the€testimony€of€RenaÐ b² ÐPrince,€which€it€characterized€as€"placing€another€gun€at€the€scene."€€Initially,€the€state€attempted€toÐ H˜ Ðintroduce€the€agreed€order€allowing€the€defendant's€ballistics€expert€to€access€the€state's€ballistics„Ð . ~ Ðrelated€evidence.€€The€defense€objected,€however,€and€the€trial€court€sustained€the€objection.€Ð  d ÐAlthough€the€state€suggested€several€other€possible€courses€of€action€that€it€believed€to€be€availableÐ ú J Ðfor€purposes€of€rebutting€Ms.€Prince's€testimony,€the€only€one€entertained€by€the€trial€court€was€aÐ à 0 Ðmissing€witness€jury€charge.€€The€state€offered€to€recall€its€own€ballistics€expert,€Steve€Scott,€toÐ Æ   Ðtestify€that€the€defendant's€ballistics€expert€had€indeed€tested€the€ballistics€evidence€at€the€TBIÐ ¬ ü  Ðfacilities€and€that€he€was€within€the€range€of€the€court's€subpoena€power,€thereby€establishing€aÐ ’â  Ðfoundation€for€the€missing€witness€charge.€€When€the€trial€court€indicated€that€it€would€allow€theÐ xÈ  Ðstate€to€recall€Scott€to€establish€the€basis€for€the€instruction,€defense€counsel€offered€to€stipulate€theÐ ^®  Ðanticipated€testimony.€€The€trial€court€read€the€stipulation€into€the€record€and€ultimately€providedÐ D”  Ðthe€jury€with€a€missing€witness€charge.Ô‡X'XXX'ÔÐ *z  ÐÌÔ#†X'XXX'‘h#Ôà  àRebuttal€evidence,€defined€as€that€"which€tends€to€explain€or€controvert€evidence€producedÐ öF Ðby€an€adverse€party,"€is€admissible€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòCozzolino€v.€Stateóó,€584Ð Ü, ÐS.W.2d€765,€768€(Tenn.€1979);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Yarbroóó,€618€S.W.2d€521,€525€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€Ð  Ð"Whether€[evidence]€is€rebuttal€[evidence]€is€not€determined€by€the€order€in€which€[it€is€presented].€Ð ¨ø ÐThis€determination€is€based€upon€the€content€of€the€evidence€offered."€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€825€S.W.2dÐ ŽÞ Ð695,€698€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€"The€rationale€behind€[the€rule]€is€ðð[s]ince€the€state€does€not€andÐ tÄ Ðcannot€know€what€evidence€the€defense€will€use€until€it€is€presented€at€trial,€the€state€is€given€theÐ Zª Ðright€of€rebuttal.'"€òòState€v.€Cyrus€Deville€Wilsonóó,€No.€01C01„9408„CR„00266€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð @ Ðat€Nashville,€Nov.€15,€1995)€(citing€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€469€S.W.2d€529,€530€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð &v Ð1971)).€€The€scope€of€rebuttal€testimony€usually€lies€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòBeasleyÐ  \ Ðv.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€820,€824€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€Trial€courts€may€properly€permit€the€stateÐ òB Ðto€introduce€testimony€in€rebuttal€which€should€have€been€introduced€in€their€proof€in€chief.€Ð Ø( ÐòòJohnsonóó,€469€S.W.2d€at€530.Ð ¾ ÐÌà  àThe€missing€witness€rule€provides€that€when€there€is€"ðða€reasonable€assurance€that€it€wouldÐ Š Ú Ðhave€been€natural€for€a€party€to€have€called€the€absent€witness€but€for€some€apprehension€about€hisÐ p!À  Ð[or€her]€testimony,'€an€inference€may€be€drawn€by€the€jury€that€the€testimony€would€have€beenÐ V"¦! Ðunfavorable."€€òòState€v.€Francisóó,€669€S.W.2d€85,€89€(Tenn.€1984)€(quoting€òòBurgess€v.€United€Statesóó,Ð <#Œ" Ð440€F.2d€226,€237€(D.C.€Cir.€1970)).€€This€rule€was€established€in€òòGraves€v.€United€Statesóó,€150€U.S.Ð "$r# Ð118€(1893).€€While€the€original€rule€in€òòGravesóó€created€a€presumption€of€the€unfavorability€of€theÐ %X $ Ðtestimony,€the€rule€is€now€generally€characterized€as€authorizing€a€permissive€inference.€€òòFrancisóó,Ð î%>!% Ð669€S.W.2d€at€88;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€598€S.W.2d€209,€224€(Tenn.€1980).€€In€òòDelk€v.€Stateóó,€590Ð Ô&$"& ÐS.W.2d€435,€440€(Tenn.€1979),€our€supreme€court€held€that€a€party€may€comment€about€an€absentÐ º' #' Ðwitness€when€the€evidence€shows€as€follows:Ð  (ð#( ÐÌà  àà ` à(1)€the€witness€had€knowledge€of€material€facts;Ð l*¼%* ÐÌà  àà ` à(2)€that€a€relationship€exists€between€the€witness€and€the€party€Ð 8,ˆ', Ðà  àà ` àthat€would€naturally€incline€the€witness€to€favor€the€party;€andÐ ° ÐÌà  àà ` à(3)€that€the€missing€witness€was€available€to€the€process€of€the€Ð |Ì Ðà  àà ` àtrial€court.€Ð b² ÐÌThese€requirements€are€to€be€"strictly€construed,€particularly€when€the€rights€of€a€criminal€defendantÐ . ~ Ðmay€be€affected."€€òòFrancisóó,€669€S.W.2d€at€89.€€Ð  d ÐÌà  àRena€Prince's€testimony€was€offered€by€the€defense€to€imply€that€Cannon€might€have€firedÐ à 0 Ðthe€fatal€shot.€€The€stipulation€that€Robert€Goodwin€had€tested€the€defendant's€weapon,€coupled€withÐ Æ   Ðhis€failure€to€testify,€was€presented€to€rebut€any€possible€inference€drawn€by€the€jurors.€€Because,Ð ¬ ü  Ðhowever,€the€"missing€witness"€was€a€ballistics€expert,€his€testimony€would€have€related€to€hisÐ ’â  Ðopinions€as€to€the€weapon€used€in€the€shooting€and€whether€the€pistol€recovered€from€the€defendant'sÐ xÈ  Ðhome€was€the€same€weapon€used€in€the€shooting.€€This€testimony€does€not€meet€the€first€criteriaÐ ^®  Ðlisted€in€òòDelkóó.€€That€is,€the€expert€witness€did€not€have€knowledge€of€"material€facts"€relative€to€theÐ D”  Ðshooting.€€Instead,€he€had€formed€opinions€based€upon€his€knowledge€in€the€field€of€ballistics€andÐ *z  Ðhis€examination€of€the€weapons€and€ammunition.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€703€(stating€that€experts€inÐ ` Ðscientific€or€technical€fields€may€testify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion).€€Ð öF ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€it€cannot€be€said€that€an€expert€will€always€be€naturally€inclined€to€favor€theÐ Â Ðparty€who€hires€him,€as€required€by€the€second€òòDelkóó€criteria.€€Although€an€expert€may€be€more€likelyÐ ¨ø Ðto€testify€if€his€views€are€consistent€with€the€theory€of€his€employer,€"we€are€not€convinced€that€anÐ ŽÞ Ðexpert's€testimony€must€somehow€be€a€commodity€bought€and€sold€to€reflect€exactly€what€a€partyÐ tÄ Ðmight€wish€or€direct."€€òòTaylor€v.€Kohlióó,€625€N.E.2d€64,€68€(Ill.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€It€was,€therefore,Ð Zª Ðerroneous€for€the€trial€court€to€provide€a€missing€witness€instruction€relative€to€the€ballistics€expert.€Ð @ ÐWere€we€to€hold€otherwise,€any€expert€witness€not€called€upon€to€testify€for€the€state€or€the€defenseÐ &v Ðwould€entitle€the€other€side€to€a€missing€witness€instruction.€€Parties€might€be€disinclined€to€hireÐ  \ Ðconsulting,€non„testifying€experts€for€fear€that€their€absence€might€result€in€a€negative€inference.€€InÐ òB Ðour€view,€that€is€not€the€intention€of€the€missing€witness€rule.€€Our€research€does€not€indicate€anyÐ Ø( Ðother€Tennessee€case€in€which€the€missing€witness€rule€was€applied€under€similar€circumstances.€Ð ¾ ÐAn€Indiana€appellate€court,€reviewing€a€trial€court's€refusal€to€issue€a€missing€witness€instructionÐ ¤ô Ðunder€similar€circumstances,€stated€the€following:Ð Š Ú ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àRefusing€the€instruction€was€not€reversible€error.€€The€court€isÐ V"¦! Ðinvested€with€discretion€in€determining€the€final€instructions€to€beÐ <#Œ" Ðgiven€to€the€jury.€€Our€prior€decisions€have€disapproved€the€giving€ofÐ "$r# Ðsuch€"missing€witness"€instructions€unless€clearly€required€by€theÐ %X $ Ðevidence.€€We€find€it€unrealistic€to€impose€on€litigants€the€necessityÐ î%>!% Ðof€calling€as€witnesses€every€expert€whom€they€may€have€consultedÐ Ô&$"& Ðat€some€stage€of€the€proceedings€or€suffer€a€missing€witnessÐ º' #' Ðinstruction€when€the€case€goes€to€trial.Р(ð#(` x` x ÐÌòòBitzer€v.€Pradziadóó,€571€N.E.2d€593,€597€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1991)€(citations€omitted).€€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌà  àFurthermore,€the€record€provides€us€with€no€information€to€assess€the€admissibility€of€theÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÑ$OY Ñâ $âѰ°Ñâ $âÑ  Ñ"missing"€ballistics€expert's€testimony.€€The€only€reference€in€the€record€to€the€defendant's€ballisticsÐ ° Ðexpert€comes€from€the€agreed€order,€wherein€the€state€and€the€defense€stipulated€that€Goodwin€wouldÐ –æ Ðbe€permitted€to€test€the€weapon€at€the€TBI€laboratory.€€In€the€absence€of€any€information€aboutÐ |Ì ÐGoodwin's€education€or€training,€this€court€is€unable€to€conclude€that€he€would€have€qualified€as€anÐ b² Ðexpert€in€the€field€of€ballistics€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€701Ô‡X'XXX'Ô.€€It€is,€therefore,€our€conclusion€that€the€trialÐ H˜ Ðcourt€erred€by€providing€a€missing€witness€instruction€relating€to€the€ballistics€expert.€€Ð . ~ ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€trial€court€erred€by€instructing€the€jury€regarding€the€missing€witness,€the€stateÐ ú J Ðis€entitled€to€a€harmless€error€analysis.€€òòSeeóó€òòFrancisóó,€669€S.W.2d€at€90.€€A€reversal€is€required€if€theÐ à 0 Ðerror€affirmatively€appears€to€have€affected€the€result€of€the€trial€on€the€merits.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð Æ   Ð36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€The€proof€of€the€defendant's€guilt€was€substantial.€€€The€weaponÐ ¬ ü  Ðlocated€at€the€defendant's€home€matched€the€bullets€and€casings€recovered€from€the€scene€of€theÐ ’â  Ðshooting€and€the€bullets€recovered€from€the€truck.€€In€contrast,€the€testimony€of€Rena€PrinceÐ xÈ  Ðprovided€little€assistance€to€the€defense€theory.€€It€merely€suggested€that€another€gun€might€haveÐ ^®  Ðbeen€present€at€the€scene€of€the€crime.€€There€was€no€indication€that€it€had€been€fired.€€Moreover,Ð D”  Ðthe€defendant€admitted€to€shooting€at€the€truck.€€In€our€assessment,€the€missing€witness€juryÐ *z  Ðinstruction€was€harmless€error.Ô#†X'XXX'ó†#ÔÔ‡X'XXX'Ô€€€Ð ` ÐÓ  ÓÌV€à @ àÐ Ü, ÐÌÓƒŒÓà  àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€instruction€to€the€jury€relative€toÐ ¨ø Ðthe€order€of€consideration€of€offenses.€€The€trial€court€charged€the€jury€on€first€degree€murder,€andÐ ŽÞ Ðthe€lesser€included€offenses€of€second€degree€murder,€voluntary€manslaughter,€reckless€homicide,Ð tÄ Ðand€criminally€negligent€homicide.€€In€conformity€with€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instruction€CriminalÐ Zª Ð41.01,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€to€first€consider€whether€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€firstÐ @ Ðdegree€murder€before€proceeding€to€the€lesser€included€offense€of€second€degree€murder,€and€toÐ &v Ðcontinue€in€that€manner€until€reaching€a€verdict.€€Ô#†X'XXX'LŒ#Ô€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instruction€Criminal€41.01Ð  \ Ðprovides€as€follows:Ð òB ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIf€you€have€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€the€defendant's€guilt€ofÐ ¾ Ð_________€(insert€offense€charged)€as€charged€in€the€indictment,€thenÐ ¤ô Ðyour€verdict€must€be€not€guilty€as€to€this€offense,€and€then€you€shallÐ Š Ú Ðproceed€to€determine€[his][her]€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€lesserÐ p!À  Ðincluded€offense€of€_________€(insert€lesser€included€offense).ÐV"¦!` x` x ЀÌThe€defendant€now€argues€that€the€court's€€instructions€to€first€consider€first€degree€murder€"gaveÐ "$r# Ðmore€weight€to€the€charge€of€first€degree€murder,€invaded€the€province€of€the€jury€regarding€theÐ %X $ Ðmanner€in€which€their€deliberations€were€to€be€conducted,€and€effectively€prevented€the€jury€fromÐ î%>!% Ðconsidering€all€possible€convictions."€òòó󀀀РÔ&$"& ÐÌà  àThis€court€has€previously€rejected€similar€arguments.€€In€òòState€v.€Rutherfordóó,€876€S.W.2d€118Ð  (ð#( Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.,€Feb.€14,€1994),€the€defendant€argued€that€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðsequential€nature€of€the€charge€prevented€the€jury€from€determining€the€degree€of€homicide€shownÐ l*¼%* Ðby€the€evidence.€€A€panel€from€this€court€concluded€as€follows:€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÐ 8,ˆ', Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€jury€does€have€a€duty€to€determine€the€grade€of€the€offense,€butÐ ° Ðthe€"sequential"€instruction€was€not€violative€of€this€duty€underÐ –æ ÐTennessee€law.€€The€judge€instructed€the€jury€on€all€of€the€lesserÐ |Ì Ðoffenses€included€in€the€charge€of€first€degree€murder€as€required€byÐ b² Ðstatute.€€The€sequential€jury€instruction€did€not€preclude€the€jury€fromÐ H˜ Ðconsidering€the€lesser€charges.€òòÐ. ~` x` x ÐÌId.óó€at€119€(citations€omitted);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Robert€Williamsóó,€No.€03C01„9302„CR„00050€(Tenn.Ð ú J ÐCrim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Apr.€2,€1996).€€This€issue,€therefore,€is€without€merit.Ð à 0 Ѐ€€€€€Ð Æ   ÐÓ  ÓVIà @ àà @` àÐ ¬ ü  ÐÌÓð˜Óà  àAs€his€final€issue,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÐ xÈ  Ðconviction€for€first€degree€murder.€€Specifically,€he€contends€that€the€evidence€did€not€support€aÐ ^®  Ðfinding€of€premeditation.€Ð D”  ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÐ ` Ðreasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€836Ð öF Ð(Tenn.€1978).€€The€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€theÐ Ü, Ðreconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€trier€ofÐ Â Ðfact.€€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€In€a€criminal€case,€a€convictionÐ ¨ø Ðmay€be€set€aside€only€when€the€reviewing€court€finds€that€the€"evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÐ ŽÞ Ðfinding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€A€guiltyÐ tÄ Ðverdict,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€state€andÐ Zª Ðresolves€all€conflicts€in€testimony€in€favor€of€the€state's€theory.€€òòState€v.€Hatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627,Ð @ Ð630€(Tenn.€1978).€€A€verdict€against€the€defendant€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€raisesÐ &v Ða€presumption€of€guilt€upon€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474€(Tenn.€1973).Ð  \ ÐÌà  àFirst€degree€murder€is€defined€as€a€"premeditated€and€intentional€killing€of€another."€€Tenn.Ð Ø( ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1).€€"'[P]remeditation'€is€an€act€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€andÐ ¾ Ðjudgment"€and€requires€that€the€"intent€to€kill€[be]€formed€prior€to€the€act€itself."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ¤ô Ððð€39„13„202(d).€€A€person€"acts€intentionally€with€respect€to€the€nature€of€the€conduct€or€to€a€resultÐ Š Ú Ðof€the€conduct€when€it€is€the€person's€conscious€objective€or€desire€to€engage€in€the€conduct€or€causeÐ p!À  Ðthe€result."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(a).€€While€the€intent€to€kill€must€have€been€formed€priorÐ V"¦! Ðto€the€act€itself,€"[i]t€is€not€necessary€that€the€purpose€to€kill€pre„exist€in€the€mind€of€the€accused€forÐ <#Œ" Ðany€definite€period€of€time."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(d).€€One€authority€provides€some€insightÐ "$r# Ðinto€the€nature€of€proof€required€before€a€jury€might€properly€infer€premeditation:Ð %X $ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€facts€about€how€and€what€the€defendant€did€prior€to€the€actualÐ Ô&$"& Ðkilling€which€show€he€was€engaged€in€activity€directed€toward€theÐ º' #' Ðkilling,€that€is,€planning€activity;Р(ð#(` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€facts€about€the€defendant's€prior€relationship€and€conduct€with€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðvictim€from€which€motive€may€be€inferred;€andÐl*¼%*` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)€facts€about€the€nature€of€the€killing€from€which€it€may€be€inferredÐ R+¢&+ Ðthat€the€manner€of€the€killing€was€so€particular€and€exacting€that€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðdefendant€must€have€intentionally€killed€according€to€a€preconceivedÐ ° Ðdesign.€Ð–æ` x` x ÐÌ2€LaFave€&€Scott,€Substantive€Criminal€Law€ðð€7.7;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€15€S.W.3d€880,€888„89;€Ð b² ÐòòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Premeditation€is€a€question€for€theÐ H˜ Ðjury€and€may€be€inferred€from€the€manner€and€circumstances€of€the€killing.€€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881Ð . ~ ÐS.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð  d ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€here€established€that€the€defendant,€rather€than€leaving€the€scene,€armedÐ à 0 Ðhimself€and€hid€in€some€bushes€while€waiting€for€the€truck€to€drive€by.€€The€defendant€fired€at€leastÐ Æ   Ðseven€different€times€from€his€semiautomatic€weapon€into€a€truck€containing€two€unarmedÐ ¬ ü  Ðpassengers.€€The€shot€that€killed€the€victim€entered€from€the€rear€of€the€truck,€striking€the€victim€inÐ ’â  Ðthe€back€of€the€head,€thereby€indicating€that€the€truck€was€already€past€the€defendant€when€he€firedÐ xÈ  Ðthe€fatal€shot.€€The€defendant€was€found€hiding€in€a€car€after€the€shooting.€€He€admitted€that€heÐ ^®  Ðintended€to€fire€his€weapon€at€the€truck.€€The€jury€was€given€a€self„defense€instruction,€but€rejectedÐ D”  Ðthat€theory,€finding€instead€that€the€defendant€had€intentionally€and€with€premeditation€shot€andÐ *z  Ðkilled€the€victim.€€This€evidence,€accredited€by€the€jury,€is€sufficient€to€prove€the€elements€of€theÐ ` Ðcrime.Ð öF ÐÐ  Ü, Ðà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€€€Ð ° ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð H˜ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE€Ð . ~ ÐÌÌÌÌ