ÿWPC  ˜dñ¥WÈ(‰XÀã¤ÜJ5œ¢Fò¦f‡= ÝCÚàûî%üµ{ý+LýV#>Êv<ßß‹æ²òåàiÈ™„û@HG¨¾F™rA É·Cp³ÇLa‡¦ÿ­×ÚÍDOSWRÙqQG=¯¬n>?Q"—h¼meEÐÜ%“ÇüwPë˜9 ÌKljÜ(>Û5ðGI§TW*Uc°< #/Ø¢9Ž–Ûãû7ôŽ_šlElÇÂ- ÒØ^†9åB-_ñ+gÍB-ì5Ïɶ%ù’*üò½È+¼Fy PÜë>›‰­ ÄYdÚ°îÚN‘ÜÍËÑÖÈZ§c>ÿ[/Kf0BwÕ§”èd“ÙŒ#R×ä`c|‚q@“>=«†H÷u „ë\â]Ò_Ž\½yûBñi¸l¶ÞO¿õõð-¬þÐd­$Ús͉u¹ûÈloj”PlKýçÕ &çÑlÜcóˆ#!|®îÈ6–¨‰’}Ê­™Ö¶” bT:—é Ödz³ªøOÓ¶aë\¬eü<2…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ LÍ U: bS w@[ 4› ¯ 0ƾ 0D„ ûÈ Và U:!U[U:°UêU:?yU:––––––––– BÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ D3ííí 0D                                                                                   AOdƳ³ 0Dy D/½ Bì˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÐ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- 89U:;<U=D>eB+C+DÓ€ýhµ&3|xO(v(2ò$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X¨ãXXXÔÔ€ô7¯ôXX¨ãÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ñÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThere€is€no€dispute€that€Dr.€Smithððs€opinion€satisfies€the€general€standards€of€relevancyÐ `  Ðas€well€as€the€rules€of€evidence€that€govern€expert€testimony LÝ ƒ µ¯$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X8¼XXXÔÔ€ô÷ëôXX8¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThere€is€no€dispute€that€Dr.€Smithððs€opinion€satisfies€the€general€standards€of€relevancy€as€wellÐ `  Ðas€the€rules€of€evidence€that€govern€expert€testimony.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular KÝ ƒ µ¯$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X8¼XXXÔÔ€ô÷ëôXX8¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThere€is€no€dispute€that€Dr.€Smithððs€opinion€satisfies€the€general€standards€of€relevancy€as€wellÐ `  Ðas€the€rules€of€evidence€that€govern€expert€testimony,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular KÝ ƒ µ¯$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X8¼XXXÔÔ€ô÷ëôXX8¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThere€is€no€dispute€that€Dr.€Smithððs€opinion€satisfies€the€general€standards€of€relevancy€as€wellÐ `  Ðas€the€rules€of€evidence€that€govern€expert€testimony,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô€X¨ãXXXÔÔ€îç¹ îXX¨ãÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Yþ  îîç¹ÔÐ  ÐÌò òJune€2,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô7¯ô YþÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñDññ>ñ›ñ>ññDñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ŠÒÚŠXXÔÔ€ŠðgŠŠŠÒÚÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€fXXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñDñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E<f  tt0"t` ¨Ørß›ñDñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌFEBRUARY€SESSION,€1999ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9712„CC„00530Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àSEVIER€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€REX€HENRY€OGLEó óÐ Xø  Ðò òTERRY€PROFFITT,ó óà h àà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal€„€First€Degree€Murder)Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 0Ð ÐÌJAMES€W.€GREENLEEà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ  !À Ð118€Bruce€Streetà  àà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ "¸ ÐSevierville,€TN€€37862Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMICHAEL€J.€FAHEY,€IIÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAL€SCHMUTZERÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€ATCHLEYÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSevier€County€CourthouseÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSevierville,€TN€€37862ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  p6-.S ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„ó×„ŠŠðgÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†ŠðgŠ„„ó×™ #ÔÐ `  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓÑ7€fXXdìXXdì7Ñà@®®.®àˆÌà ` àOn€October€7,€1996,€the€Sevier€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€Appellant€TerryÏProffitt€for€one€count€of€first€degree€murder.€€After€a€jury€trial€held€on€SeptemberÏ24ð!ð26,€1997,€Appellant€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€and€was€sentencedÏto€life€imprisonment.€€Appellant€challenges€his€conviction,€raising€the€followingÏissues:ÌÓÓà0 ` à1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€excluded€an€expert€opinion€thatÏAppellant€lacked€the€ability€to€ð ðknowinglyðð€kill€the€victim;€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€when€it€refused€to€instruct€the€juryÏthat€the€doctrine€of€diminished€capacity€applies€to€the€requisite€mentalÏstates€for€both€first€degree€and€second€degree€murder.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓ½ÓAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌò òà@ÑÑ*®àI.€€FACTSó óˆÐ  !¬ ÐÌà ` àOn€June€6,€1996,€Appellant€killed€his€ex„wife,€Kimberly€Proffitt,€by€shootingÏher€two€times€with€a€Marlin€45/70€lever€action€rifle.€€When€questioned€by€policeÏlater€that€night,€Appellant€stated€that€he€and€Ms.€Proffitt€had€gotten€into€anÏargument€after€Ms.€Proffitt€had€mentioned€her€boyfriend.€€Appellant€stated€thatÏhe€then€grabbed€his€rifle,€which€he€believed€was€unloaded,€in€an€attempt€to€scareÏMs.€Proffitt.€€Appellant€stated€that€the€rifle€had€fired€accidentally€when€Ms.€ProffittÏpulled€it.€€Appellant€also€testified€that€the€rifle€fired€a€second€time€while€Ms.ÏProffitt€was€still€pulling€it.€ÌÌà ` àAgent€Dan€Royce€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€testified€thatÏin€order€to€fire€Appellantððs€rifle,€the€lever€would€have€to€be€worked€and€then€theÐ \8ü.0 Ðtrigger€would€have€to€be€pulled.€€Agent€Royce€also€testified€that€in€order€to€fire€aÏsecond€shot,€either€the€lever€would€have€to€be€worked€again€or€the€hammerÏwould€have€to€be€manually€cocked€and€in€either€case,€the€trigger€would€have€toÏbe€pulled€again.€€Agent€Royce€testified€that€the€rifle€could€not€fire€merely€fromÏbeing€grabbed€unless€the€trigger€was€pulled€at€the€same€time.€ÌÌà ` àDoctor€Cleland€Blake€testified€that€when€he€examined€the€body€of€Ms.ÏProffitt,€he€discovered€that€she€had€bruises€and€cuts€on€her€right€hand.€€Dr.€BlakeÏtestified€that€these€wounds€were€defensive€wounds€that€were€likely€caused€whileÏMs.€Proffitt€was€holding€the€rifle€and€someone€pulled€it€away€from€her.€€Dr.€BlakeÏalso€testified€that€it€would€have€been€impossible€for€Ms.€Proffitt€to€have€still€beenÏholding€the€rifle€when€the€second€shot€was€fired.€ÌÌà ` àJ.R.€Cantrell€testified€that€approximately€three€weeks€before€the€shooting,ÏAppellant€told€Cantrell€that€he€had€become€upset€with€Ms.€Proffitt€and€he€hadÏconsidered€shooting€her.€Cantrell€also€testified€that€approximately€one€to€twoÏweeks€before€the€shooting,€Appellant€told€Cantrell€that€it€would€be€better€if€Ms.ÏProffitt€was€dead€and€someone€else€was€raising€their€children.€ÌÌà ` àDonald€Ogle€testified€that€in€September€of€1995,€he€saw€Appellant€grabÏMs.€Proffitt€by€the€hair,€pin€her€against€a€cabinet€door,€and€put€a€knife€to€herÏthroat.€€Donald€Ogle€also€testified€that€in€October€of€1995,€he€saw€Appellant€holdÏa€gun€in€Ms.€Proffittððs€mouth.€€Donald€Ogle€further€testified€that€when€he€calledÏAppellantððs€residence€one€week€before€the€shooting€and€asked€Appellant€whereÏMs.€Proffitt€was€residing,€Appellant€told€him€where€Ms.€Proffitt€was€living€and€thenÏstated,€ð ðbut€sheððs€not€going€to€live€anywhere€long.ðð€Ð Ð9p02 Їà ` àJohnny€Ogle€testified€that€three€days€before€the€shooting,€Appellant€statedÏthat€ð ðhe€ought€to€bust€a€capðð€on€Ms.€Proffitt,€which€Johnny€Ogle€understood€toÏmean€that€Appellant€ought€to€shoot€Ms.€Proffitt.€ÌÌà ` àJohnny€Costner€testified€that€four€days€before€the€shooting,€Appellant€toldÏCostner€that€he€was€going€to€kill€Ms.€Proffitt.€€Costner€also€testified€that€two€daysÏbefore€the€shooting,€Appellant€told€Costner€that€he€had€thought€about€killing€Ms.ÏProffitt€ð ðall€day€long.ðð€ÌÌà ` àDoctor€Michael€Smith€testified€that€in€his€opinion,€Appellant€suffered€fromÏð ða€major€depression€of€severe€to€psychotic€proportionsðð€that€rendered€AppellantÏincapable€of€either€premeditating€the€shooting€or€forming€an€intent€to€kill.€€Dr.ÏSmith€admitted,€however,€that€if€a€person€stated€that€he€or€she€was€going€to€killÏanother,€that€could€be€evidence€of€an€intent€to€kill.€€Dr.€Smith€also€admitted€thatÏif€a€person€stated€that€he€or€she€had€been€thinking€about€killing€another€for€a€longÏperiod€of€time,€that€could€also€be€evidence€of€an€intent€to€kill.€€In€addition,€Dr.ÏSmith€admitted€that€if€a€person€had€made€up€a€story€in€order€to€avoidÏresponsibility€for€a€killing,€that€could€be€evidence€that€the€person€was€capable€ofÏforming€an€intent€to€kill.€ÌÌà ` àIn€a€jury€out€hearing,€Dr.€Smith€testified€that€in€his€opinion,€AppellantððsÏmental€condition€rendered€him€incapable€of€ð ðknowinglyðð€killing€Ms.€Proffitt.€ÏHowever,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€this€testimony€was€inadmissible.€€The€trial€courtÏbased€this€ruling€on€its€determination€that€the€doctrine€of€diminished€capacity€onlyÏapplied€to€first€degree€murder€charges€and€was€inapplicable€to€second€degreeÏmurder€charges.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€Dr.€Smith€could€testify€thatÐ Ð9p02 ÐAppellant€did€not€have€the€ability€to€premeditate€or€form€the€intent€to€kill,€but€Dr.ÏSmith€could€not€testify€that€Appellant€did€not€have€the€ability€to€ð ðknowinglyðð€kill.€ÌÌà ` àAt€the€close€of€trial,€Appellant€submitted€a€special€jury€request€for€anÏinstruction€on€diminished€capacity.€€This€proposed€instruction€stated,€in€relevantÏpart,€that€if€the€jury€concluded€that€Appellantððs€diminished€capacity€rendered€himÏincapable€of€having€the€requisite€mens€rea€for€either€first€degree€murder€or€forÏsecond€degree€murder,€the€jury€must€find€him€not€guilty€of€those€offenses.€€TheÏtrial€court€rejected€this€instruction€and€instead,€the€court€instructed€the€jury€thatÏif€it€concluded€that€Appellantððs€diminished€capacity€rendered€him€incapable€ofÏacting€intentionally€or€with€premeditation,€then€it€must€find€him€not€guilty€of€firstÏdegree€murder.€ÌÌà@ÓÓ$®àò òII.€€EXPERT€TESTIMONYó óˆÐ "0 ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€refused€to€permit€Dr.ÏSmith€to€testify€that€Appellant€did€not€have€the€ability€to€ð ðknowinglyðð€kill.€€TheÏState€concedes€that€the€trial€court€erred,€but€maintains€that€it€was€harmless€errorÏunder€the€circumstances.€ÌÌà ` àApproximately€three€months€after€Appellantððs€trial,€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€addressed€the€issue€of€diminished€capacity€in€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2dÐ  2À(* Ð679€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€supreme€court€stated:ÌÓÓà0 ` à[T]o€gain€admissibility,€expert€testimony€regarding€a€defendantððs€incapacityÏto€form€the€required€mental€state€must€satisfy€the€general€relevancyÏstandards€as€well€as€the€evidentiary€rules€which€specifically€govern€expertÏtestimony.€€Assuming€that€those€standards€are€satisfied,€psychiatricÏevidence€that€the€defendant€lacks€the€capacity,€because€of€mental€diseaseÐ à9€02 Ðor€defect,€to€form€the€requisite€culpable€mental€state€to€commit€the€offenseÏcharged€is€admissible€under€Tennessee€law.€€€ñ7ñÐ ` T$` T$ Ðñ7ñÌÓ|'ÓòòId.óó€at€689.€€The€supreme€court€made€no€distinction€between€the€application€of€theÐ H è Ðdoctrine€of€diminished€capacity€to€first€degree€or€second€degree€murder€charges.€ÏIndeed,€this€Court€has€previously€stated€thatÌñ8ñÓÓñ8ñà0 ` àAlthough€not€explicitly€addressed,€the€òòHallóó€opinion€apparently€did€not€limitÐ ¸  Ðapplication€of€the€doctrine€to€specific€intent€crimes,€as€this€Court€implied€inÏ[òòState€v.€]Phippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€[138,]€149€n.€19€(declining€to€decide€whetherÐ ¨  Ðdiminished€capacity€negates€mental€states€other€than€specific€intent).€€WeÏbelieve€this€is€implicit€in€the€courtððs€repeated€statements€that€diminishedÏcapacity€is€relevant€to€negate€the€requisite€culpable€mental€state,€not€justÏpremeditation€and€deliberation.€€òòHallóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€690€(emphasisÐ èˆ Ðadded).€€Moreover,€the€distinction€between€general€and€specific€intentÏcrimes€has€been€abandoned€in€our€criminal€code.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39-11-301€(Sentencing€Commission€Comments).€€€ñ9ñÐ ` T$` T$ Ðñ9ñÌñ8ñÓÆ*Óñ8ñòòState€v.€Calvin€Lee€Sneedóó,€No.€03C01„9611„CR„00444,€1998€WL€309137,€at€*13Ð À` Ðn.9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€June€12,€1998).€€Because€the€doctrine€ofÏdiminished€capacity€applies€to€all€offenses€in€which€the€State€is€required€to€proveÏa€specified€mens€rea,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€should€have€allowed€Dr.ÏSmith€to€give€his€opinion€that€Appellantððs€mental€condition€rendered€himÏincapable€of€ð ðknowinglyðð€killing€Ms.€Proffitt.ñ>ññBññCñœ×ƒ×ñCññCñ׃×ñCññBññBñ׃×ñBññ>ññ>ñ׃ ×ñ>ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€However,€we€agree€with€the€StateÐ p& Ðthat€the€trial€courtððs€error€was€harmless€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case.ÌÌà ` àIn€this€case,€the€jury€heard€Dr.€Smithððs€opinion€that€Appellant€suffered€fromÏð ða€major€depression€of€severe€to€psychotic€proportionsðð€that€rendered€AppellantÏincapable€of€either€premeditating€the€shooting€or€forming€an€intent€to€kill.€€TheÏjury€obviously€rejected€Dr.€Smithððs€opinion€and€concluded€that€Appellant€hadÏcommitted€a€premeditated€and€intentional€killing.€€Indeed,€there€was€ampleÏevidence€upon€which€a€rational€jury€could€base€this€conclusion.€€It€isÐ ð5,. Ðinconceivable€that€a€rational€jury,€having€concluded€that€Appellant€had€committedÏan€intentional€and€premeditated€murder,€could€also€conclude€that€Appellant€hadÏnot€acted€ð ðknowingly.ðð€€Such€a€conclusion€would€defy€all€logic.€€Therefore,€it€isÏobvious€that€even€if€Dr.€Smith€had€been€allowed€to€testify€that€Appellantððs€mentalÏcondition€rendered€him€incapable€of€a€ð ðknowingðð€killing,€the€jury€would€haveÏrejected€that€opinion€just€as€it€rejected€the€opinion€that€Appellant€could€not€killÏintentionally€or€with€premeditation.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€errorÏin€limiting€the€expert€testimony€was€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€ThisÐ ð  Ðissue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@’’#®àò òIII.€€JURY€INSTRUCTIONSó óˆÐ À` ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€refused€to€instruct€theÏjury€that€the€doctrine€of€diminished€capacity€applies€to€the€requisite€mental€statesÏfor€both€first€degree€and€second€degree€murder.€€The€State€concedes€that€theÏtrial€court€erred,€but€contends€that€the€error€was€harmless.ÌÌà ` àInitially,€we€note€that€the€trial€court€ð ðhas€the€duty€to€give€a€complete€chargeÏof€the€law€applicable€to€the€facts€of€the€case.ðð€€òòState€v.€Davenportóó,€973€S.W.2dÐ P,ð"$ Ð283,€287€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€As€previously€stated,€the€doctrine€ofÏdiminished€capacity€as€it€applies€to€both€first€degree€and€second€degree€murderÏwas€applicable€to€the€facts€of€this€case.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failedÏto€instruct€the€jury€that€it€should€consider€whether€Appellantððs€mental€stateÏrendered€him€incapable€of€having€the€requisite€mental€state€(ð ðknowingðð)€forÏsecond€degree€murder.€€However,€we€agree€with€the€State€that€this€was€harmlessÏerror.Ð à9€02 Їà ` àThis€issue€is€somewhat€analogous€to€the€issue€presented€in€the€case€ofÏòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€977€S.W.2d€101€(Tenn.€1998).€€In€òòWilliamsóó,€the€TennesseeÐ P ð ÐSupreme€Court€held€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€lesserÏoffense€of€voluntary€manslaughter€was€harmless€when€the€jury€convicted€theÏdefendant€of€first€degree€murder€after€it€had€been€instructed€on€both€first€degreeÏand€second€degree€murder.€€òòId.óó€at€106.€€The€supreme€court€stated:Ð °  Ðñ:ñÓÓñ:ñà0 ` àñ;ñBy€convicting€the€defendant€of€first€degree€murder€the€jury€determined€thatÏthe€proof€was€sufficient€to€establish€all€the€elements€of€that€offense€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt,€including€that€the€killing€was€ð ðintentional,€deliberateÏand€premeditated.ðð€€In€other€words,€by€finding€the€defendant€guilty€of€theÏhighest€offense€to€the€exclusion€of€the€immediately€lesser€offense,€secondÏdegree€murder,€the€jury€necessarily€rejected€all€other€lesser€offenses,Ïincluding€voluntary€manslaughter.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€courtððs€erroneousÏfailure€to€charge€voluntary€manslaughter€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€because€the€juryððs€verdict€of€guilt€on€the€greater€offense€of€firstÏdegree€murder€and€its€disinclination€to€consider€the€lesser€included€offenseÏof€second€degree€murder€clearly€demonstrates€that€it€certainly€would€notÏhave€returned€a€verdict€on€voluntary€manslaughter.€€ñ;ññ;ñBy€convicting€the€defendant€of€first€degree€murder€the€jury€determined€thatÏthe€proof€was€sufficient€to€establish€all€the€elements€of€that€offense€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt,€including€that€the€killing€was€ð ðintentional,€deliberateÏand€premeditated.ðð€€In€other€words,€by€finding€the€defendant€guilty€of€theÏhighest€offense€to€the€exclusion€of€the€immediately€lesser€offense,€secondÏdegree€murder,€the€jury€necessarily€rejected€all€other€lesser€offenses,Ïincluding€voluntary€manslaughter.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€courtððs€erroneousÏfailure€to€charge€voluntary€manslaughter€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€because€the€juryððs€verdict€of€guilt€on€the€greater€offense€of€firstÏdegree€murder€and€its€disinclination€to€consider€the€lesser€included€offenseÏof€second€degree€murder€clearly€demonstrates€that€it€certainly€would€notÏhave€returned€a€verdict€on€voluntary€manslaughter.€€ñ;ññ<ñÐ ` T$` T$ Ðñ<ñÌñ:ñÓp<Óñ:ñòòId.óó€€Similarly,€the€juryððs€rejection€of€Dr.€Smithððs€opinion€that€Appellant€could€notÐ ˜!8 Ðkill€intentionally€or€with€premeditation€indicates€that€it€certainly€would€haveÏrejected€Dr.€Smithððs€opinion€that€Appellant€could€not€ð ðknowinglyðð€kill.€€There€is€noÏquestion€that€ð ðintentionalðð€and€ð ðpremeditationðð€are€ð ðgreaterðð€mental€states€thanÏð ðknowing.ðð€€For€instance,€ð ððð[i]ntentionalðð€refers€to€a€person€who€acts€intentionallyÏwith€respect€to€the€nature€of€the€conduct€or€to€a€result€of€the€conduct€when€it€isÏthe€personððs€conscious€objective€or€desire€to€engage€in€the€conduct€or€cause€theÏresult.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(a)€(1997).€€In€addition,€ð ðððpremeditationðð€isÏan€act€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„202(d)€(Supp.€1998).€€Further,€ð ððð[k]nowingðð€refers€to€a€person€who€actsÏknowingly€with€respect€to€the€conduct€or€to€circumstances€surrounding€theÏconduct€when€the€person€is€aware€of€the€nature€of€the€conduct€or€that€theÏcircumstances€exist.€€A€person€acts€knowingly€with€respect€to€a€result€of€theÐ Ø8x/1 Ðpersonððs€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€that€the€conduct€is€reasonably€certainÏto€cause€the€result.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(b)€(1997).€€By€convictingÏAppellant€of€first€degree€murder,€the€jury€found€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€thatÏAppellant€had€killed€intentionally€and€with€premeditation.€€In€finding€that€AppellantÏacted€with€these€higher€mental€states,€the€jury€necessarily€rejected€all€otherÏlesser€mental€states.€€Thus,€the€jury€clearly€would€not€have€found€that€AppellantÏhad€been€incapable€of€ð ðknowinglyðð€killing.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€trialÏcourtððs€erroneous€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€that€the€doctrine€of€diminishedÏcapacity€could€negate€the€requisite€mental€state€for€second€degree€murder€isÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€This€issueÐ Ðp Ðhas€no€merit.ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.Ìñ=ñÌà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àÌÌÌÌñ=ñÓ  Óñ=ñà ` àÌÌñ=ñÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€SENIOR€JUDGE