ÿWPC:, ?U .‚ %°b¶ºn­Ê 0Dw 0(»U:ãw@4]U:q 0@« 0 ™ë 0c„U:ç 0J! 0Tk 0^¿ 0h 0r… 0|÷ 0†s 0ù 1u‰ 0dþ D3b B• U*² AQÜ Æ- B)ó 0D D/` B DC¬ AMï é<f%ƒ‹¡è¯œ—ü3g/–µ q½ ».#v~é$vÓg&<þ6X9`(CourierX ù3|xÇ«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ý($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular ³D´µ¶·V¸D¹Dº»Ó€Çäzz!, øð AZ"Arial Regular("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò(I(2Ó“$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XG>XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("å$Ô€XB"XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Arial* ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5% Line 7 d($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd++++7Border 1dd*/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ßÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òJune€17,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ yÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€court€is€not€entirely€clear€as€to€whether€the€petitioner's€position€isÏthat€€the€jury€may€have€been€biased€against€him€because€he€is€homosexual€orÏbecause€he€was€merely€perceived€at€the€time€of€trial€to€be€homosexual.€€HisÏposition€with€respect€to€his€sexual€orientation€has€been€inconsistent€in€theÏvarious€proceedings;€however,€it€matters€not€for€purposes€of€our€analysisÏwhether€he€is€homosexual€or€was€merely€perceived€as€homosexual.Ì —Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€petitioner's€counsel€elicited€testimony€from€the€petitioner€that€aÏfriend€of€the€victim's€son€called€the€petitioner€a€"faggot"€and€the€petitionerÏreturned€the€comment€just€before€the€petitioner€killed€the€victim.Ì ÞÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€complaint€is€premised€on€several€passages€from€the€trial€transcriptÏwhich€the€petitioner€argues€were€"meant€to€improperly€show€the€jury€that€theÏpetitioner€was€an€outsider€and€invader€in€the€neighborhood,€.€.€.€was€not€worthyÏof€belief,€.€.€.€deserved€to€be€shot,€and€most€importantly,€that€he€and€hisÏhomosexual€friend€casually€walked€back€arm„in„arm€after€he€shot€this€familyÏman."€€In€addition,€the€petitioner€contends€the€prosecutor€improperly€referred€toÏthe€petitioner€as€Mr.€Scott's€"friend"€during€his€cross„examination€of€Scott.€Ì ’Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€and€his€father€testified€theÏShriners€wore€their€hats€in€the€courtroom.€€Mr.€Scott€testified€the€Shriners€woreÏtheir€hats€in€the€hallway€but€had€them€in€their€laps€while€seated€in€theÏcourtroom.€€On€appeal,€the€petitioner's€complaint€is€that€the€Shriners€"wereÏseated€in€the€courtroom€[and€wore]€their€fraternal€hats€in€the€hallway€during€theÏtrial€in€a€mass€demonstration€designed€to€prejudice€and€intimidate€the€jury."Ì òÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€most€of€the€jurors€had€some€knowledge€of€the€petitioner's€caseÏfrom€reading€about€it€in€the€newspaper,€the€voir€dire€transcript€confirms€that€theÏjurors'€knowledge€about€the€case€was€extremely€limited.€€To€be€sure,€some€ofÏthe€jurors€could€not€even€recall€the€substance€of€what€they€had€read€about€theÏcase.€€All€of€the€jurors€confirmed€that€they€could€disregard€any€previousÏinformation€they€had€received€about€the€case€and€make€a€determination€basedÏon€the€evidence€developed€in€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€63„64Ï(Tenn.€1992)€(trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€denying€motion€to€changeÏvenue€where€jurors€had€limited€knowledge€of€case€from€reading€about€it€and€allÏindicated€they€could€set€aside€pretrial€information€and€return€a€verdict€basedÏsolely€upon€the€evidence).Ì ]Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€we€understand€the€evidence,€however,€the€second€type€of€bullet€theÏTBI€expert€reported€to€be€in€the€gun€was€"solid€lead"€and€would€produce€a€"dirtyÏwound."Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€public€defender€testified€his€investigation€included€visiting€the€area,Ïtalking€to€neighbors€and€friends,€looking€for€an€alleged€eyewitness,€interviewingÏthe€victim's€medical€providers,€investigating€the€owners€of€vehicles€identified€byÏthe€petitioner€and€obtaining€prior€law€enforcement€complaints€between€theÏpetitioner€and€the€Walkers.Ì gÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€two€strategies€here€in€question€are€inherentlyÏinconsistent.€€In€employing€a€self„defense€strategy,€the€petitioner€pursued€theÏtheory€he€justifiably€killed€the€victim.€€In€pursuing€the€theory€he€now€espouses,Ïhe€would€be€required€to€contend€he€did€not€shoot€the€victim€at€all,€someone€elseÏdid.€€It€is€difficult€to€imagine€a€defendant€who€truly€believed€the€latter€abiding€byÏa€trial€strategy€of€the€former.Ì ±Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€petitioner€contends€in€his€brief€that€Mr.€Scott€likewise€testified€heÏhad€seen€Juror€Wall€at€the€victim's€home.€€Contrary€to€the€petitioner's€citations€toÏthe€post„conviction€hearing€transcript,€the€record€does€not€bear€out€hisÏassertion.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÔ€(ÔÑ7€ "T XdðdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌÌÑ€Ñò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ*ÙßR€01/A1-j|¶ÿ` Å `€€@ÿRߛ̀à@ àAT€JACKSONÌó óÌà@ àMARCH€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌò òJOSEPH€MASON€RHINERSON,à àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àPetitioner,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€02C01„9608„CC„00265Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCarroll€Countyà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àà àà à)à àHonorable€Julian€P.ÏGuinn,€Judge€à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellee.à àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 à)à0 àÌà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€Petitioner:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌC.€DAVID€JONESà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌP.O.€Box€707à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ150€W.€Main€St.ÌHuntingdon,€TN€€38344„0707à àà àà àELLEN€H.€POLLACKÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àROBERT€GUS€RADFORDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àELEANOR€CAHILLÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€663Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCamden,€TN€38320ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÌÑ€2ÑÇÑ7€22XXdð Xdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓÓÑ7€ "T XXdðXXdð7Ñà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌà àà àThe€petitioner,€Joseph€Mason€Rhinerson,€appeals€the€CarrollÏCounty€Circuit's€Court€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€He€is€serving€a€lifeÏsentence€following€his€conviction€of€murder€in€the€first€degree.€€€In€this€appeal€ofÏhis€first€post„conviction€proceeding,€he€alleges€he€was€denied€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€based€upon€his€trial€counsel's€failure€to€questionÏprospective€jurors€about€their€views€on€homosexuality,€failure€to€move€for€aÏmistrial€and€make€pertinent€objections,€failure€to€make€a€timely€motion€forÏchange€of€venue,€and€failure€to€investigate€and€present€evidence€that€theÏpetitioner€did€not€fire€the€bullet€that€killed€the€victim.€€He€also€alleges€hisÏcounsel's€failure€to€question€the€venire€about€their€views€on€homosexualityÏdenied€him€fundamental€fairness€and€due€process€and€that€he€was€likewiseÏdenied€due€process€because€a€juror€allegedly€withheld€information€about€herÏknowledge€of€the€case€and€her€relationship€with€the€victim's€family.€€Finally,€heÏalleges€he€was€denied€a€fair€trial€because€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€and€theÏconduct€of€the€victim's€supporters€during€trial.€€On€review€of€these€issues,€whichÏwe€have€reordered€for€purposes€of€discussion,€we€affirm€the€lower€court'sÏdismissal€of€the€petitioner's€post„conviction€petition.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€in€the€Carroll€County€œCircuit›€Court€of€Ïfirst€degree€murder€for€the€fatal€shooting€of€his€neighbor,€Daniel€Michael€Walker.€ÍThe€facts€of€that€case€are€summarized€in€this€court's€opinion€on€direct€appeal.€ÏòòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Joseph€Mason€Rhinersonóó,€No.€02C01„9105„CC„00104€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Jackson,€Dec.€18,€1991),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1992).€€It€sufficesÏfor€our€purposes€to€note€that€the€murder€was€committed€following€an€extendedÏperiod€of€ill€will€between€the€petitioner€and€members€of€the€victim's€household,Ïthe€extent€of€which€was€vigorously€contested€at€trial.€€The€petitioner€wasÏrepresented€at€trial€by€Guy€Wilkinson,€the€public€defender€of€the€Twenty„FourthÏJudicial€District,€and€Buddy€Roe,€an€assistant€public€defender.€€Mr.€RoeÏrepresented€the€petitioner€in€his€direct€appeal€to€this€court.€In€that€appeal,€theÏpetitioner's€conviction€was€affirmed.€€Permissive€appeal€was€denied€by€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court.€€Thereafter,€the€petitioner€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief€in€which€he€complained€of€various€errors€at€trial,Ïconstitutional€deprivations€and€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Following€theÏappointment€of€counsel€and€the€filing€of€an€amended€petition,€a€hearing€wasÏheld,€and€the€Honorable€Julian€P.€Guinn,€Carroll€County€Circuit€Court,€found€theÏpetitioner's€claims€wholly€without€merit€and€denied€relief.€€The€petitioner€is€nowÏbefore€this€court€in€his€appeal€of€that€determination.€ÌÌà àà àIn€post„conviction€proceedings,€a€petitioner€has€the€burden€ofÏproving€his€post„conviction€allegations€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€ÍòòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€A€trial€court'sÏfindings€of€fact€following€a€post„conviction€hearing€have€the€weight€of€a€juryÏverdict.€€òòBreton€v.€Stateóó,€477€S.W.2d€754,€756€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1971).€€OnÏappeal,€those€findings€are€conclusive€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€judgment.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€900€(Tenn.€1990).€€€WithÏthat€standard€of€review€in€mind,€we€turn€to€the€issues€presented.ÌÌà@ àò òIÌà àà àó óThe€petitioner€raises€several€allegations€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel.€€When€a€petition€challenges€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€theÏpetitioner€has€the€burden€of€establishing€(1)€deficient€representation€and€(2)Ïprejudice€resulting€from€that€deficiency.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ï668,€686,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2066„67€(1984);€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,Ï936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Deficient€representation€occurs€when€counsel€providesÏassistance€that€falls€below€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€criminalÏattorneys.€€òòBankston€v.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ÏPrejudice€is€the€reasonable€likelihood€that,€but€for€deficient€representation,€theÏoutcome€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòOverton€v.€Stateóó,€874ÏS.W.2d€6,€11€(Tenn.€1994).€€On€post„conviction€review,€there€is€a€strongÏpresumption€of€satisfactory€representation.€€òòBarr€v.€Stateóó,€910€S.W.2d€462,€464Í(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).€€Moreover,€this€court€doesÏnot€view€matters€of€trial€strategy€or€tactics€as€a€basis€for€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€814€S.W.2d€374,€378€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).ò òÌÌà@ àAÌó óà àà àIn€his€first€issue€pertaining€to€the€effectiveness€of€counsel,€theÏpetitioner€complains€of€his€trial€counsel's€failure€to€examine€the€potential€jurorsÏduring€voir€dire€on€their€views€about€homosexuality.€At€the€time€of€the€victim'sÏmurder,€the€petitioner,€an€adult€man,€was€living€in€the€home€of€another€adultÏman,€Johnny€Scott.€€Apparently,€members€of€the€community,€including€membersÏof€the€victim's€family€and€possibly€the€victim€himself,€believed€the€petitioner€andÏMr.€Scott€were€involved€in€a€homosexual€relationship.€€The€petitioner€alleged€atÏtrial€he€and€Mr.€Scott€were€the€subjects€of€ridicule€and€harassment€because€ofÏthis€perception.€€The€basis€of€his€demand€for€post„conviction€relief€is€that€thisÏappearance€of€homosexuality,× ƒ3 ××  ×€allegedly€fostered€at€trial€through€referencesÏand€innuendos€to€the€petitioner's€"lifestyle,"€inflamed€the€jury€and€tainted€itsÍverdict.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€petitioner's€trial€counsel,€Guy€T.€Wilkinson,Ïtestified€he€decided€after€some€deliberation€not€to€question€the€venire€aboutÏtheir€views€on€homosexuality.€€He€reached€this€decision€because€the€petitionerÏ"very€vehemently€denied"€that€he€was€homosexual,€and€he€did€not€think€it€was€aÏwise€strategic€decision€to€call€attention€to€the€perception€the€petitioner€wasÏhomosexual€in€light€of€that€denial.€€ÌÌà àà àThis€court€is€constrained€not€to€second„guess€the€tactical€andÏstrategic€choices€made€by€trial€counsel€absent€a€showing€those€decisions€wereÏuninformed€due€to€inadequate€preparation.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€5,€9Ï(Tenn.€1982).€€Counsel's€alleged€errors€will€be€judged€at€the€time€they€wereÏmade€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€then€existing.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.Ïat€690,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066;€òòseeóó€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.Ï1993).€€€Furthermore,€trial€counsel€will€not€be€found€ineffective€merely€becauseÏa€different€tactic€may€have€produced€a€different€result.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€599ÏS.W.2d€276€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€record€reflects€that€the€petitioner€had€theÍbenefit€of€well„prepared€and€experienced€counsel.€€Because€the€petitioner'sÏcounsel€considered€his€approach€and€decided€not€to€question€the€venire€on€theÏissue€as€a€matter€of€trial€strategy,€we€will€not,€with€the€benefit€of€hindsight,Ïsecond„guess€that€decision.€€òòSeeóó€òòCox€v.€Stateóó,€880€S.W.2d€713,€718€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994).ÌÌà@ àò òBó óÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€second€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€€arises€from€his€counsel's€pursuit€of€one€line€of€questioning× ƒ4 ××  ×€and€failureÏto€make€objections€to€several€of€the€prosecutor's€lines€of€questioning× ƒ5 ××  ×€which€theÏpetitioner€contends€were€inflammatory€and€highly€prejudicial.€€Also€theÏpetitioner€cites€his€counsel's€failure€to€object€or€request€a€mistrial€when€theÏvictim's€fellow€Shriners€allegedly€wore€Shriner€paraphernalia€in€a€show€ofÍsolidarity€with€the€victim's€family,× ƒ6 ××  ×€when€the€victim's€wife€allegedly€caused€anÏoutburst€during€the€petitioner's€testimony€in€which€she€cried€and€yelled€that€theÏpetitioner€and€his€housemate€were€liars,€and€when€the€victim's€supporters€wereÏloud€and€disruptive€during€the€trial.€€Finally,€the€petitioner€contends€theÏcumulative€effect€of€all€of€these€alleged€failings€deprived€him€of€effectiveÏcounsel.ÌÌà àà àThe€lower€court€disposed€of€the€allegations€that€the€victim's€wifeÏwas€disruptive,€the€victim's€family€and€friends€verbally€abused€the€petitionerÏwithin€earshot€of€the€jury,€and€that€the€victim's€fellow€Shriners€wore€theirÏfraternal€hats€in€the€courtroom.€€It€found€the€victim's€wife€left€the€courtroom€afterÏbursting€into€tears,€which€"was€not€of€particular€significance€and€certainly€notÏunexpected€in€a€trial€of€this€nature."€€The€lower€court€further€found€the€remainingÏallegations€regarding€the€actions€of€the€victim's€wife€and€the€victim's€family€andÏfriends€were€"untrue."€€The€trial€court€did€not€address€the€petitioner's€complaintsÏabout€his€counsel's€questions€on€direct€exam€and€failure€to€object€to€theÍprosecution's€examination€of€witnesses,€and€this€court€notes€the€petitioner€hasÏraised€these€issues€for€the€first€time€in€this€appeal.€ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€issues€addressed€by€the€trial€court,€that€theÏvictim's€wife€called€the€petitioner€and€his€housemate€liars,€the€victim's€familyÏand€friends€verbally€abused€the€petitioner€within€earshot€of€the€jury,€and€theÏvictim's€fellow€Shriners€wore€their€fraternal€hats€in€the€courtroom,€we€cannot€sayÏthat€the€evidence€of€record€preponderates€against€the€lower€court's€findings.€ÏThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€conclusion€that€these€eventsÏdid€not€occur.€€Because€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€the€truth€of€theseÏallegations,€no€further€analysis€is€necessary.ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€petitioner's€complaint€that€the€victim's€wifeÏcaused€a€disruption€when€she€burst€into€tears€during€the€petitioner's€testimony,Ïthe€petitioner's€trial€counsel€testified€he€felt€like€emotions€would€be€a€part€of€theÏcase€and€tried€to€cover€this€with€the€jury€"in€the€very€beginning."€€In€hisÏexperience,€"a€lot€of€times€when€people€break€down€crying€and€things€happenÏin€a€case€I€just€think€it's€better€to€„„€you€know,€it€happened,€and€let€it€go€and€getÏgone.€.€.€.€I€would€have€done€something€if€it€was€so€outrageous€that€I€felt€like€itÏwas€bad."€€Because€the€public€defender€obviously€made€the€decision€not€toÍobject€based€on€his€experience€and€conscious€evaluation€of€the€situation€atÏhand,€we€will€not€second„guess€his€decision.€€€òòSeeóó€òòCoxóó,€880€S.W.2d€at€718.€ÏMoreover,€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€court's€conclusion€that€this€briefÏoutburst€was€not€significant€in€the€context€of€the€trial,€and€we€fail€to€see€anyÏprejudice€which€has€befallen€the€petitioner€as€a€result€of€the€victim's€wife's€briefÏcrying€spell€in€front€of€the€jury.€€Thus,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€theÏpetitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€his€trial€counsel's€ineffectiveness€in€thisÏregard.ÌÌà àà àLikewise,€we€find€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€the€issuesÏpresented€for€the€first€time€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€902Ï(Tenn.€1990);€òòEllison€v.€Stateóó,€549€S.W.2d€691,€694€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976)ÏMoreover,€we€note€that€the€petitioner's€counsel€did€lodge€his€objections€to€atÏleast€some€of€the€passages€quoted€from€the€trial€transcript,€and€in€any€event,Ïnone€of€these€newly€raised€issues€deprived€the€petitioner€of€his€constitutionalÏright€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€considering€cumulatively€all€of€counsel's€allegedÏshortcomings€in€questioning,€failing€to€object€and€failing€to€move€for€a€mistrial,Ïwe€see€no€prejudice€on€this€record.€€The€petitioner's€trial€counsel€was€notÍineffective€in€this€regard.ÌÌà@ àò òCó óÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€next€grievance€with€trial€counsel€is€that€he€failed€toÏmake€a€timely€motion€for€change€of€venue€based€upon€pretrial€publicity.€€TheÏrecord€reflects€that€no€written€motion€for€change€of€venue€was€filed,€andÏAttorney€Wilkinson€first€made€such€motion€orally€at€the€conclusion€of€juryÏselection.€€The€motion€was€denied€based€upon€(1)€untimeliness,€(2)€the€lack€ofÏsignificant€pretrial€publicity,€(3)€the€lack€of€undue€jury€knowledge€about€theÏcause€as€demonstrated€during€voir€dire,€(4)€the€fact€that€no€potential€jurors€wereÏchallenged€by€the€petitioner€for€cause,€and€(5)€the€selected€jurors€could€be€fair.€ÏòòJoseph€Mason€Rhinersonóó,€slip€op.€at€9.€€This€issue€was€raised€in€the€directÏappeal,€and€this€court€held€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÏfailing€to€grant€the€motion.€€òòJoseph€Mason€Rhinersonóó,€slip€op.€at€9.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€and€his€father€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€Ïthat€they€demanded€the€public€defender€make€a€motion€for€change€of€venue€atÏthe€early€stages€of€the€proceedings.€€Mr.€Wilkinson€testified€he€did€not€believe€aÏchange€of€venue€was€needed€because€the€publicity€surrounding€the€case€wasÏnot€extensive€throughout€the€county€and€he€believed€he€could€get€jurors€fromÍparts€of€the€county€other€than€the€community€where€the€offense€occurred€whoÏwould€not€be€biased€by€pretrial€publicity€or€gossip.€€In€the€transcript€of€voir€dire,Ïthe€jurors€all€acknowledged€they€could€be€fair€and€impartial€and€set€aside€anyÏpre„trial€information€they€had€read€or€heard€about€the€case.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€The€post„conviction€court€denied€relief,€finding€that€the€issue€was€previously€determinedÏand€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€develop€significant€proof€that€the€jury€panel€wasÏprejudiced€against€him€or€that€any€familiarity€with€the€victim's€family€interferredÏwith€his€right€to€a€fair€trial.ÌÌà àà àAs€this€court€has€previously€recognized,€a€strategic€decision€byÏcounsel€not€to€challenge€venue€is€a€"valid€tactical€choice."€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòAdkins€v.ÏStateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€347€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòLofton€v.€Stateóó,€898ÏS.W.2d€246,€249€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€The€record€reflects€that€AttorneyÏWilkinson€considered€whether€to€make€an€early€motion€to€change€venue€andÍmade€a€tactical€decision€not€to€do€so.€€As€with€the€other€strategic€decisionsÏmade€by€Wilkinson€in€his€representation€of€the€petitioner€at€trial,€we€will€notÏreevaluate€his€decision€with€the€benefit€of€hindsight.€€òòSeeóó€òòCoxóó,€880€S.W.2d€atÏ718.€€Moreover,€the€post„conviction€court€noted€there€was€no€proof€the€trial€courtÏwould€have€acted€differently€upon€a€timely€motion€for€change€of€venue.€€òòSeeóóÏòòAdkinsóó,€911€S.W.2d€343.€€The€record€demonstrates€no€prejudice€to€theÏpetitioner€because€of€counselððs€failure€to€file€a€pre„trial€motion€for€change€ofÏvenue.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069.€Thus,€the€lower€courtÏcorrectly€denied€relief€on€this€issue.ÌÌà@ àò òDó óÌà àà àIn€the€petitioner's€last€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€he€contends€trial€counsel€failed€to€investigate€and€present€evidenceÏthat€he€did€not€fire€the€bullet€that€killed€the€victim;€rather,€someone€on€theÏvictim's€property€accidentally€shot€the€victim€while€attempting€to€shoot€theÏpetitioner.€€In€support€of€this€newly€developed€theory,€the€petitioner€contends€theÏgun€he€fired€during€the€fatal€confrontation€with€the€victim€was€loaded€with€onlyÏone€type€of€bullet,€while€there€is€evidence€another€type€of€bullet€may€have€beenÏrecovered€from€the€body€of€the€victim.€€The€evidence€developed€at€trial€includedÏthe€testimony€of€a€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€Crime€LaboratoryÍballistics€expert.€€This€expert€testified€the€bullet€retrieved€from€the€victim's€bodyÏhad€the€same€characteristics€as€those€which€were€test„fired€at€the€crime€lab€fromÏthe€gun€used€by€the€petitioner.€€The€TBI€expert€could€not,€however,€conclusivelyÏdetermine€that€the€bullet€recovered€from€the€victim's€body€was€fired€from€theÏweapon€used€by€the€petitioner.€€Significantly,€the€TBI€expert€also€testified,Ïcontrary€to€the€petitioner's€housemate's€subsequent€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€that€€the€gun€taken€into€evidence€was€loaded€with€twoÏdifferent€types€of€bullets.€€The€petitioner's€father€testified€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing€he€had€done€some€investigation€of€the€type€of€bullet€his€son€contendsÏwas€in€the€gun€and€determined€that€this€type€of€bullet€would€not€be€"solid€lead"Ïas€the€TBI€expert€testified,€and€further,€this€type€of€bullet€would€not€create€aÏ"dirty"€wound€as€described€in€the€victim's€autopsy€report.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€finds€fault€with€his€counsel's€failure€to€discoverÏthese€facts€prior€to€trial.€€He€further€contends€his€attorney's€failure€to€present€theÏalternative€defense€is€not€insulated€from€our€review€as€a€matter€of€trial€strategyÏbecause€it€was€not€an€informed€decision€made€after€investigation.€€However,€theÏpetitioner€has€developed€no€evidence€which€would€have€put€the€publicÍdefender€on€notice€prior€to€trial€that€this€avenue€was€worthy€of€investigation.€ÏThe€petitioner's€father€first€realized€something€was€wrong€when€he€heard€theÏTBI€expert's€testimony€during€the€trial.€€Similarly,€the€petitioner's€housemate€didÏnot€realize€until€he€reviewed€the€trial€transcripts€that€there€was€evidence€he€hadÏtwo€types€of€bullets€in€his€gun.€€Although€defense€counsel€surely€had€the€TBI€labÏreport€prior€to€trial,€the€petitioner€has€presented€no€evidence€that€the€publicÏdefender€was€made€aware€of€his€contention€there€was€only€one€type€of€bullet€inÏthe€gun,€rather€than€two.€€Moreover,€the€petitioner€presented€no€evidence€whichÏwould€serve€to€raise€a€reasonable€suspicion€with€counsel€that€the€matterÏwarranted€further€investigation.€€Significantly,€Attorney€Wilkinson€testified€theÏpetitioner€never€raised€any€question€as€to€whether€he€shot€the€victim,€and€theÏonly€real€issue€for€them€to€deal€with€was€whether€the€shooting€was€justified.€€Mr.ÏWilkinson€testified€that€he€developed€the€theory€of€self„defense€based€on€hisÏconversations€with€the€petitioner€and€the€investigation€he€conducted.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€Further,ÏMr.€Wilkinson€opined€that€it€is€ineffective€to€present€a€jury€with€alternativeÍtheories€of€a€case.× ƒ; ××  ×ÌÌà àà àThe€lower€court€found€there€was€no€"repeated€allegation"€theÏpetitioner€did€not€shoot€the€victim€and€that€self„defense€was€the€only€availableÏdefense€based€on€the€petitioner's€statements€to€counsel€and€the€physicalÏevidence.€€Further,€the€lower€court€found€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€takeÏexception€to€his€counsel's€choice€of€defense€after€lengthy€consultation.€ÏAccordingly,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€relief.€€€We€find€nothing€whichÏpreponderates€against€these€findings€of€the€trial€court.€€Moreover,€the€choice€ofÏa€defense€strategy€is€inherently€tactical€and€not€subject€to€review€where€theÏdecision€is€informed€and€based€on€adequate€preparation.€€òòHellardóó,€629€S.W.2dÏat€9.€€The€record€reflects€the€petitioner's€counsel€chose€the€strategy€based€onÏconsultation€with€his€client€and€investigation.€€Having€found€no€evidence€whichÏcalls€into€question€the€lower€court's€denial€of€relief€on€this€issue,€we€must€holdÏthat€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€based€on€his€post„convictionÏdisagreement€with€his€counsel's€trial€strategy.ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€next€complaint€is€that€he€was€denied€due€processÏbecause€one€of€the€jurors€"withheld€information€about€her€knowledge€of€theÏcase€and€her€relationship€with€the€victim's€family."€€The€petitioner€argues€thatÏthe€alleged€dishonesty€of€Juror€Lisa€Wall€gives€rise€to€the€presumption€of€biasÏand€partiality,€and€this€bias€cannot€be€cured€except€by€new€trial.€ÌÌà àà àChallenges€to€juror€qualifications€generally€fall€into€two€categoriesÏat€common€law€„„€propter€defectum€or€propter€affectum.€€òòPartin€v.€Hendersonóó,Ï686€S.W.2d€587,€589€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€€Objections€based€on€generalÏdisqualifications,€such€as€alienage,€family€relationship€or€statutory€mandate€areÏclassified€as€propter€defectum€and€must€be€challenged€prior€to€the€return€of€theÏjury€verdict.€€òòState€v.€Akinsóó,€867€S.W.2d€350,€355€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€OnÏthe€other€hand,€objections€based€on€bias,€prejudice€or€partiality€toward€a€partyÏto€the€proceeding€which€is€shown€or€presumed€are€classified€as€propterÏaffectum.€€òòDurham€v.€Stateóó,€182€Tenn.€577,€582,€188€Tenn.€555,€559€(Tenn.Ï1945).€€Propter€affectum€challenges€may€be€made€after€the€return€of€the€juryÏverdict.€€òòState€v.€Furloughóó,€797€S.W.2d€631,€652€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€TheÏpetitionerððs€challenge€falls€in€the€category€of€propter€affectum.ÌÌà àà àThe€party€alleging€juror€bias€or€partiality€bears€the€burden€of€proofÏon€the€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€669€S.W.2d€694,€700€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1983).€€When€a€juror€wilfully€conceals€or€fails€to€disclose€information€which€callsÏinto€question€her€impartiality,€a€presumption€of€prejudice€arises.€€òòDurhamóó,€182ÏTenn.€at€584,188€S.W.2d€at€559;€òòseeóó€òòHyatt€v.€Stateóó,€221€Tenn.€644,€646,€430ÏS.W.2d€129,€130€(Tenn.€1967)€(silence€on€an€issue€considered€a€negativeÏresponse).€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€alleges€Juror€Wall€was€dishonest€with€the€courtÏbecause€she€failed€to€reveal€that€her€mother's€first€cousin€was€a€co„worker€andÏfriend€of€the€victim's€during€his€lifetime.€€Further,€he€contends,€two€of€herÏmother's€first€cousin's€children€are€friends€of€the€victim's€sons€and€haveÏparticipated€in€harassing€the€petitioner€and€Mr.€Scott.€€The€petitioner€alsoÏtestified€he€had€seen€Juror€Wall€visiting€the€victim's€home€several€times.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€testified€Mr.€Wilkinson€did€not€consult€with€himÏduring€the€jury€selection€process;€however,€he€offers€no€explanation€of€why€heÏdid€not€bring€Juror€Wall's€alleged€presence€at€the€victim's€home€to€Wilkinson'sÏattention€during€jury€selection.€€Mr.€Wilkinson€testified€the€petitioner€voiced€hisÍsatisfaction€with€the€jury,€and€Wilkinson€did€not€learn€of€any€alleged€connectionÏbetween€Juror€Wall€and€the€victim's€family€(other€than€those€revealed€in€voirÏdire)€until€a€break€in€the€proceedings€when€the€€petitioner's€housemate€or€fatherÏbelatedly€brought€the€matter€to€his€attention.ÌÌà àà àThe€transcript€of€voir€dire€memorializes€that€prior€to€trial€Juror€WallÏread€about€the€petitioner's€case€in€the€newspaper€but€she€did€not€know€any€ofÏthe€parties€involved.€€She€admitted€she€had€maternal€relatives€in€the€communityÏwhere€the€incident€occurred€and€she€had€heard€about€the€case€through€them,Ïalthough€they€provided€no€information€beyond€what€had€been€in€theÏnewspapers.€€Further,€€she€acknowledged€that€her€maternal€relatives€probablyÏknew€the€people€involved,€but€she€was€not€sure€of€this.€€She€agreed€she€did€notÏhave€any€preconceived€ideas€about€the€petitioner's€guilt€or€innocence€andÏcould€return€a€verdict€based€on€the€evidence€alone.€€Notably,€Juror€Wall€was€notÏquestioned€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€The€petitioner's€post„convictionÏcounsel€made€an€oral€motion€at€the€beginning€of€the€hearing€for€the€court€toÏsubpoena€the€jury,€and€specifically€Ms.€Wall,€which€the€judge€took€underÏadvisement€"until€such€a€time€as€[he]€hear[d]€whatever€it€is€[the€petitioner]Ïpropose[d]€to€develop€in€this€case."€€The€petitioner's€counsel€did€not€thereafterÏrenew€this€motion€at€the€conclusion€of€his€proof,€and€as€a€result€Juror€Wall'sÍtestimony€was€not€submitted.ÌÌà àà àThe€court€below€found€that€the€issue€of€jury€bias€was€previouslyÏdetermined€in€the€direct€appeal,€and€in€any€event,€nothing€"of€significance"€wasÏdeveloped€to€support€the€petitioner's€contention.€€We€begin€our€analysis€byÏnoting€that€this€court€has€previously€considered€the€issue€of€jury€bias€in€theÏcontext€of€the€motion€for€change€of€venue.€€We€did€not,€however,€have€before€usÏon€direct€appeal€the€allegations€that€Juror€Wall€was€dishonest€with€the€trialÏcourt,€although€it€appears€from€the€record€that€all€the€information€before€us€nowÏwas€known€and€available€to€the€petitioner€at€the€time€of€his€direct€appeal.€ÏUnder€ordinary€circumstances,€we€might€well€find€this€issue€waived€by€failure€toÏraise€it€on€direct€appeal;€however,€the€state€did€not€raise€a€waiver€defense€in€itsÏanswer€to€the€petition€or€at€the€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112Ï(1990)€(repealed€1995).€€€Neither€has€the€state€argued€waiver€in€its€brief€to€thisÏcourt.€€Although€noting€the€apparent€waiver,€the€trial€court€considered€the€issueÏon€its€merits.€€We€will€do€the€same.€€òòSeeóó€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€357,€366„67€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àà àÌà àà àThe€essential€issue€is€whether€Juror€Wall€was€dishonest€duringÏvoir€dire.€€If€she€was,€the€petitioner€will€have€raised€the€presumption€ofÍprejudice.€€After€comparing€the€evidence€presented€by€the€petitioner€in€the€post„conviction€hearing€with€the€voir€dire€portion€of€the€trial€transcript,€we€find€that€theÏonly€conflict€is€whether€Juror€Wall€personally€knew€the€victim's€family.€€SheÏstated€she€did€not,€while€the€petitioner€testified€he€had€seen€her€at€the€victim'sÏhome€on€several€occasions.× ƒ< ××  ×€€The€lower€court€obviously€discredited€theÏtestimony€of€the€petitioner€on€this€issue,€which€was€its€prerogative€to€do€as€theÏfinder€of€fact.€€We€cannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€thisÏfinding.€€Thus,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€any€facts€which€support€aÏdenial€of€due€process,€and€the€trial€court's€determination€on€this€issue€must€beÏaffirmed.ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌà àà àNext,€in€an€issue€related€to€I(A)€above,€the€petitioner€contends€hisÏcounsel's€failure€to€question€the€venire€about€their€views€on€homosexualityÏdenied€him€his€constitutional€guarantees€of€fundamental€fairness€and€dueÏprocess.€€The€caselaw€cited€by€the€petitioner€in€his€brief,€however,€deals€withÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€the€trial€court's€failure€to€question€jurors€onÍthe€issue€of€racial€prejudice.€€The€petitioner€has€cited€no€authority€for€theÏproposition€he€advances,€and€we€have€already€determined€his€counsel€was€notÏineffective€in€this€regard.€€Having€found€no€error€of€counsel,€we€fail€to€see€howÏthe€petitioner€has€suffered€any€other€constitutional€injury.€ò ò€ó óMoreover,€as€weÏfound€on€direct€appeal,€we€fail€to€find€evidence€preponderating€against€the€trialÏcourt's€finding€that€the€jury€had€any€knowledge€or€was€in€any€way€influenced€byÏany€purported€allegation€the€petitioner€was€homosexual.€€òòJoseph€MasonÏRhinersonóó,€slip€op.€at€9;€òòaccordóó€òòState€v.€McMullenóó,€20€Kan.€App.€2d€985,€894ÏP.2d€251€(defendant€not€entitled€to€new€trial€absent€showing€that€undisclosedÏhomosexual€bias€of€one€juror€affected€the€juror's€ability€to€return€a€fair€andÏimpartial€verdict),€òòreview€deniedóó€(Kan.€1995).€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€trialÏcourt's€denial€of€relief€on€this€ground.ÌÌà@ àò òIVó óÌà àà àÌà àà àFinally,€we€address€an€issue€of€general€due€process€of€law€whichÏthe€petitioner€raises€in€his€brief.€€He€captions€the€issue€as€a€matter€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€trial€counsel€arising€from€the€failure€to€move€for€a€mistrial€orÏotherwise€object€in€response€to€several€occurrences€at€trial:€(1)€the€stateððsÏimproper€cross„examination€of€the€petitioner€and€another€defense€witness;€(2)Ían€emotional€outburst€in€the€courtroom€by€the€wife€of€the€victim;€(3)€the€victimððsÏfamily€and€friends€verbally€abusing€the€petitioner€in€view€of€the€jury;€and€(4)€theÏpresence€in€the€courtroom€of€Shriners€in€fraternal€garb.ÌÌà àà àWe€have€dealt€with€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€issuesÏabove€in€section€I(B).€€However,€although€the€petitioner€captions€the€above€fourÏissues€as€a€matter€of€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€they€areÏtransmogrified€in€the€petitionerððs€brief€into€a€complaint€about€the€free„standingÏdenial€of€due€process€of€law€in€the€form€of€the€abridgment€of€his€right€to€a€fairÏtrial.ÌÌà àà àThe€court€found€that,€with€the€exception€of€the€alleged€improperÏquestioning€by€the€prosecution,€the€cited€events€did€not€occur€during€the€trial.€ÏThe€record€on€this€appeal€does€not€preponderate€against€this€finding,€and€weÏare€precluded€from€disturbing€these€findings€of€the€post„conviction€court.ÌÌà àà àThe€remaining€issue€is€the€alleged€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€WeÏnote€that€the€petitioner€has€not€argued€in€any€earlier€stage€of€these€proceedingsÏthat€the€prosecutorððs€conduct€in€cross„examining€the€petitioner€and€another€trialÏwitness€abridged€his€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€For€this€reason,€we€could€decline€toÍaddress€this€issue€raised€for€the€first€time€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòButleróó,€œ789›€S.W.2d€atÏ902;€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36.€€However,€the€record€affords€us€an€opportunity€toÏreview€the€merits€of€the€petitionerððs€due„process/fair„trial€claim,€and€we€elect€toÏconsider€the€issue.ÌÌà àà àThe€prohibition€of€certain€prosecutorial€misconduct€is€grounded€inÏthe€constitutional€assurance€of€a€fair€trial,€perhaps€the€broadest€and€mostÏfundamental€€manifestation€of€general€due€process.€€òòSmith€v.€Phillipsóó,€455€U.S.Ï209,€219,€102€S.€Ct.€940,€947€(1982).€€òòSeeóó€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€357,€366Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€618€S.W.2dÏ510,€516€(Tenn.€œCrim.€App.›€1981).€€Within€the€context€of€the€rules€governing€ourÏreview€of€the€dismissal€of€a€post„conviction€petition,€discussed€òòsupraóó,€theÏgeneral€test€to€be€applied€to€instances€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€is€ð ðwhetherÏthe€improper€conduct€could€have€affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€theÏdefendant.ðð€€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€215€Tenn.€338,€340,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759Ï(1965).€€We€have€previously€identified€five€factors€which€should€be€consideredÏin€making€this€determination:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ1.€€The€conduct€complained€of,€viewed€in€context€andÏin€€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case.ÌÌ2.€€The€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€courtÏand€the€prosecution.ÌÌ3.€€The€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€theÏimproper€statement.ÌÌ4.€€The€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€andÏany€other€errors€in€the€record.ÌÌ5.€€The€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓòòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€now€before€us,€the€petitioner€complains€of€commentsÏand€œinnuendos›€made€by€the€prosecutor€during€cross„examination€of€defenseÏwitnesses€at€trial.€€To€summarize,€the€petitioner€objects€to€œinnuendos›€by€theÏprosecutor€that€the€petitioner€was€an€ð ðoutsider€and€invader€in€theÏneighborhood,ðð€in€the€petitionerððs€words;€that€he€was€untruthful;€that€dogs€whichÏcowed€during€the€altercation€showed€more€sense€than€did€the€petitioner;€that€heÏwas€guilty€of€conduct€that€might€have€provoked€an€assault;€and€that€he€and€hisÏhomosexual€friend€casually€walked€away€arm„in„arm€after€the€petitioner€shotÏthe€victim.€€The€petitioner€also€complains€that€the€prosecutor€referred€to€theÏpetitioner€as€Mr.€Scottððs€ð ðfriendðð€during€the€cross„examination€of€Scott.ÌÌà àà àUpon€our€review€of€the€record,€including€the€transcript€of€theÏproceedings€at€the€petitionerððs€trial,€we€find€no€discernible€misconduct€of€theÏprosecutor€in€cross„examining€the€petitioner€and€witness€Scott.€€The€cross„examination€was€vigorous,€and€during€the€cross„examination€of€petitioner€theÏconversation€between€the€prosecutor€and€the€petitioner€was€contentious.€€In€theÏoverall€context€of€the€cross„examination€and€of€the€courtroom€atmosphere,€theÏprosecutorððs€conduct€was€not€improper.€€The€cross„examination€may€have€beenÏdetrimental€to€the€petitioner,€but€in€our€adversarial€system,€cross„examination€ofÏa€witness,€especially€a€party„witness,€is€calculated€to€damage€the€proponentððsÏcase.€€In€the€absence€of€a€threshold€instance€of€misconduct,€we€have€noÏoccasion€to€consider€the€factors€enumerated€in€òòJudgeóó,€òòseeóó€òòCokeróó,€911€S.W.2dÏat€369€(prosecutorððs€actions€which€we€deemed€to€be€proper€were€discarded€andÏthe€òòJudgeóó€factors€were€not€applied),€nor€do€we€need€to€assess€the€effect€on€theÏverdict.€€Any€possible€effect€is€permissible€and€incidental€to€our€adversarialÏsystem€of€criminal€justice.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€record€does€notÏsupport€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€his€right€to€a€fair€trial€was€abridged€byÏprosecutorial€misconduct.à àà àà àÌà àà àIn€conclusion,€the€appellant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€court's€dismissal€of€his€post„convictionÏpetition.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ_______________________________ÌJOSEPH€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌ