ÿWPC¾I …U:V % 0Ü–w@r 4² Æ Õ 0 Ý 0Dý 0JA 0T‹ 0^ß 0h= 0r¥ 0| 0†“ 0 1u© 0d B‚U#*ŸB)ÉDCò D35 AMh²µ 0@gø§¤ŸÈC÷ ß  b"ân*™P-cé/¦L2Ûò4QÍ7ê:À<v~È@vÓFB AOHÆhH 0D.I D/rI B¡I, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ ÈDÉÊËDÌÍÎDÏ +ÐUÑÓ€ƒ‰"3|xÜ(Ð(3i˜$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€<âXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¨Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òAprilÏ24,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò îÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À<âXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóArchie€Bennett,€a€supervisor€at€the€Nippondenso€Plant,€described€the€victim,€JimmyÏBaskin:€€ð ðTop„notch.€€Good€worker,€very€solid,€got€a€good€head€on€his€shoulders.€€Very€fair.ðð€ÏBefore€working€at€the€Nippondenso€Plant,€from€1963€until€1990,€Baskin€served€in€the€UnitedÏStates€Army.€Ì šÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À<âXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóOn€cross„examination,€Baskin€testified€that€he€once€accompanied€the€appellant€to€look€atÏa€car€that€the€appellant€was€selling.€€Baskin€did€not€purchase€the€car,€and€he€and€the€appellantÏparted€amicably.€€Ì ¾Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€State€argued€at€trial€that€the€appellant€was€referring,€in€a€derogatory€manner,€to€theÏvictim,€Baskin,€who€is€African„American.Ì íÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€indicated€to€Dr.€Eric€Engum,€a€clinical€psychologist€who€evaluated€theÏappellant€following€the€shooting,€that€he€resumed€drinking€heavily€after€his€divorce€in€1991.Ì “Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóDr.€Engumððs€report,€which€was€admitted€at€trial,€indicates€that€the€appellant€possesses€aÏFull€Scale€I.Q.€of€108,€ð ðwhich€place[s]€him€in€the€high€average€range€of€intellectual€functioning.ðð€ÏHowever,€Dr.€Engum€also€stated€in€his€report:Ìà8 àThough€clearly€not€indicative€of€underlying€organic€brain€damage,€one€should€beÏaware€that€.€.€.€deficits€in€problem„solving,€flexibility,€responsivity€to€feedback€andÏability€to€consider€multiple€aspects€of€a€problem€.€.€.€suggest€underlyingÏdistortions€in€cognition€which€may€enhance€underlying€hypersensitivity€andÏfeelings€of€vulnerability.Ì ¹Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóA€garotte€is€an€implement€or€weapon€used€to€strangle€a€victim.€€òòWebsterððs€Ninth€NewÏCollegiate€Dictionaryóó€506€(1987).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€note€that,€in€òòState€v.€Kimbroughóó,€924€S.W.2d€888,€892€(Tenn.€1996),€the€SupremeÏCourt€held€that€the€offense€of€attempted€felony„murder€does€not€exist€in€Tennessee,€as€ð ðit€isÏlogically€and€legally€impossible€to€attempt€to€perpetrate€an€unintentional€killing.ðð€€The€SupremeÏCourt€observed€that,€because€the€intent€required€for€an€attempt€is€an€intent€to€commit€theÏcontemplated€crime,€attempt€to€commit€murder€requires€a€specific€intent€to€kill.€€òòIdóó.€at€891.€€Thus,Ïthe€court€suggested€that€the€statutory€provision€on€criminal€attempt€is€inapplicable€to€any€crimeÏrequiring€less€than€a€specific€intent.€€Ìà àVoluntary€manslaughter€requires€only€knowledge.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„211€(a)Ï(1991).€€Prior€to€òòKimbroughóó,€this€court€held€that€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter€is€an€offense€inÏTennessee.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€No.€03C01„9403„CR„00123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€JanuaryÏ11,€1995).€€However,€the€language€in€òòKimbroughóó€seemingly€casts€doubt€upon€our€conclusion€inÏòòAdamsóó.€€òòBut€seeóó€òòState€v.€Jenkinsóó,€No.€01C01„9508„CC„00269€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,ÏNovember€15,€1996)(citing€òòKimbroughóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€890)(one€who€intends€to€commit€an€actÏthat€would€constitute€second€degree€murder€but€fails€to€complete€the€act€commits€attemptedÏsecond€degree€murder).€€Of€course,€if€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter€is€not€a€crime€inÏTennessee,€then€the€trial€court€committed€no€error€in€refusing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€that€offense.€ÏòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Forbesóó,€918€S.W.2d€431,€447€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(trial€court€properlyÏdenied€the€appellantððs€special€request€for€a€jury€instruction,€as€the€instruction€was€an€incorrectÏstatement€of€the€law).Ì ØÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€attempt€statute€refers€to€the€ð ðcircumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€as€the€personÏbelieves€them€to€be.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€However,€this€reference€does€not€alter€our€subsequent€conclusion€thatÏprovocation€is€to€be€assessed€according€to€an€objective€standard,€in€light€of€the€attempt€statuteððsÏrequirement€that€a€person€act€ð ðwith€the€kind€of€culpability€otherwise€required€for€the€offense.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÒ ½ ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóHowever,€with€respect€to€deliberation,€we€note€that,€in€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€5Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€this€court€stated,€ð ðThe€[mere]€presence€of€agitation€or€even€anger,€in€ourÏview,€does€not€necessarily€mean€that€the€murder€could€not€have€occurred€with€the€requisiteÏdegree€of€deliberation.ððÌ YÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó"Calmness€immediately€after€a€killing€may€be€evidence€of€a€cool,€dispassionate,Ïpremeditated€murder."€€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€148€(òòcitingóó€òòState€v.€Browningóó,€666€S.W.2d€80,€84Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983),€and€òòSneed€v.€Stateóó,€546€S.W.2d€254,€258€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976)).Ì œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIn€fact,€the€records€of€the€Special€Needs€Facility€indicate€that€the€appellant€òòdidóóÏoccasionally€complain€of€an€inability€to€sleep.€€Otherwise,€the€records€indicate€that,€as€stated€by€Dr.ÏFarooque,€the€appellant€was€ð ðquiet€and€cooperative,ðð€interacted€well€with€other€patients€and€staffÏmembers,€and,€generally,€exhibited€no€unusual€behavior.Ì ÑÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€also€agree€with€the€State€that€the€substantial€risk€to€the€lives€of€persons€other€thanÏthe€victim€supports€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(10).€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114.€ÏòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Makokaóó,€885€S.W.2d€366,€373€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ï(Tenn.€1994)(other€persons€were€present€when€the€defendant€began€to€fire€his€weapon€at€theÏintended€victim).Ì GÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIt€is€not€entirely€clear€from€the€record€of€the€sentencing€proceeding€that€the€trial€courtÏapplied€this€factor€for€the€reason€set€forth€above.€€Nevertheless,€pursuant€to€our€òòde€novoóó€review,Ïwe€conclude€that€this€factor€should€enhance€the€appellantððs€sentence.Ì àÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIn€the€instant€case,€the€pre„sentence€report€reflects€that€the€appellantððs€criminal€historyÏconsists€of€two€prior€misdemeanor€convictions€for€public€intoxication.Ì ¶Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóParenthetically,€we€reject€the€Stateððs€contention€that€the€juryððs€verdict,€finding€theÏappellant€guilty€of€attempted€first€degree€murder,€precluded€the€application€of€this€mitigatingÏfactor.€€Based€upon€the€record,€the€trial€court€was€certainly€capable€of€concluding€that,€while€theÏappellantððs€mental€condition€did€not€prevent€him€from€forming€the€requisite€mental€state€ofÏpremeditation€and€deliberation,€it€nevertheless€reduced€his€culpability€for€the€purpose€ofÏsentencing.€€Nor€do€we€agree€with€the€State€that€ð ðto€find€this€factor€applicable€but€to€refuse€toÏcharge€voluntary€manslaughter€as€a€lesser„included€offense€is€logically€inconsistent.ðð€€As€weÏnoted€earlier,€the€provocation€necessary€to€establish€voluntary€manslaughter€is€determined€solelyÏby€an€objective€ð ðreasonable€personðð€standard€and€is€not€related€to€the€mental€condition€of€aÏparticular€defendant.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 Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýò òÙ€€ÙßR€+,)A1-j|` | `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌà@ àAUGUST€SESSION,€1996Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9502„CR„00039Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àBLOUNT€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€D.€Kelly€Thomas,€Jr.,€JudgeÌò òCECIL€SKIDMOREó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Attempted€First€Degree€Murder)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òMack€Garnerà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€Walkupó óÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ318€Court€Streetà àÌMaryville,€TN€€37804à àà àà àò òEugene€J.€Honeaó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌò òà àà àà àà àà àà àMike€Flynnó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à363€Court€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMaryville,€TN€37804„5906ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Cecil€D.€Skidmore,€was€convicted€by€a€Blount€County€juryÏof€attempted€first€degree€murder,€a€class€A€felony.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€theÏappellant€as€a€standard,€range€I€offender€to€twenty„three€years€imprisonment€inÏthe€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€In€this€appeal,€the€appellantÏchallenges€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€instruct€the€jury€concerning€the€offense€ofÏattempted€voluntary€manslaughter,€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€supportingÏthe€juryððs€verdict,€and€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€a€sentence€of€twenty„threeÏyears.ÌÌà àFollowing€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òòòI.€€Factual€Backgroundóóó óÌà àThis€case€arose€from€a€shooting€on€December€17,€1992,€at€theÏNippondenso€Meter€Plant,€located€in€Maryville,€Tennessee.€€In€December,Ï1992,€the€appellant€was€a€temporary€employee€of€the€Nippondenso€Plant.€€TheÏappellant€worked€for€the€Logistics€Department,€collecting€discarded€packingÏfoam€from€the€different€assembly€lines.€€The€victim,€Jim€Baskin,€had€worked€inÏthe€Subassembly€Department€at€the€Nippondenso€Plant€for€several€years,Ídelivering€parts€to€the€assembly€lines.× ƒ. ××  ×€€The€victim€testified€that€his€relationshipÏwith€the€appellant€was€solely€work„related,€but€friendly.€€Indeed,€the€victimÏstated€that,€prior€to€the€morning€of€December€17,€1992,€he€had€never€engagedÏin€an€extended€conversation€with€the€appellant,€much€less€any€altercation.× ƒ/ ××  ×€ÏEmployees€of€the€plant€generally€described€the€appellant€as€ð ðniceðð€and€wereÏunaware€of€any€ongoing€conflict€between€the€appellant€and€other€NippondensoÏemployees,€including€the€victim.ÌÌà àHowever,€Tony€Mowdy,€a€ð ðtool€and€die€makerðð€at€the€Nippondenso€Plant,Ïtestified€that,€approximately€two€weeks€before€the€shooting,€the€appellant€hadÏremarked€to€him€in€an€angry€tone€of€voice,€ð ðIððm€thinking€about€killing€me€aÏgoddam€buck.ðð× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Mowdy€stated€that€the€appellant€also€ð ðhad€a[n]€œ.€.€.›€angeredÏlook€on€his€face.ðð€€Richard€Marsh,€another€employee€of€the€plant,€testified€that,€aÏfew€days€before€the€shooting,€he€and€the€appellant€had€been€involved€in€anÏargument,€during€which€the€appellant€threatened€to€assault€Marsh,€stating,€ð ðIððmÍtired€of€this€shit.€€œ.€.€.›€Iððve€took€it€too€long.€€Iððve€been€taking€it€for€two€months€nowÏœand€.€.€.€.€€I›€canððt€take€it€anymore.ðð€€During€the€week€prior€to€the€shooting,€theÏappellant€mentioned€to€Marsh€several€times€that€other€employees€at€the€plantÏwere€harassing€him.€€Linda€Johnson,€a€Nippondenso€employee,€testified€that,Ïon€the€afternoon€of€December€16,€1992,€she,€the€appellant,€and€another€co„worker€were€leaving€the€plant€following€their€shift.€€When€Johnson€told€theÏappellant€that€she€would€see€him€the€next€day,€he€replied,€ð ð[Y]ou€may€and€youÏmay€not€see€œme€.€.€.€.€€[Y]ou›€may€have€someone€new€picking€up€your€garbage.ðð€ÏAccording€to€Johnson,€the€appellant€was€visibly€upset.ÌÌà àOn€the€morning€of€December€17,€1992,€just€before€5:00€a.m.,€employeesÏbegan€to€arrive€at€the€parking€lot€of€the€Nippondenso€plant.€€At€this€time,€severalÏemployees€observed€the€appellant€shoot€repeatedly€at€the€victimððs€truck.€€TheÏappellant€continued€to€fire€his€weapon€as€the€truck€fled€the€parking€lot.€ÏThereafter,€the€appellant€walked€back€to€his€own€truck€and,€ð ð[v]ery€nonchalantlyÏand€not€in€any€hurry,ðð€placed€his€weapon€on€the€seat€of€the€truck€and€lit€aÏcigarette.€€The€appellant€then€apparently€awaited€the€arrival€of€the€police.€€At€theÏtime€of€his€arrest,€the€appellant€was€ð ðpassiveðð€and€ð ðquiet.ðð€€Following€theÏappellantððs€arrest,€testing€of€the€appellantððs€blood€for€alcohol€and€drugsÏproduced€negative€results.ÌÌà àThe€victim,€Baskin,€additionally€testified€that€he€always€drove€an€orangeÍpick„up€truck€to€work€and€parked€in€the€same€location.€€On€the€morning€of€theÏoffense,€he€was€scheduled€to€arrive€at€work€at€5:00€a.m.€€The€appellantððs€shiftÏbegan€at€7:00€a.m.€€As€the€victim€backed€into€his€parking€space€atÏapproximately€4:45€a.m.,€he€heard€a€ð ðthumpðð€on€the€window€of€his€truck.€€BaskinÏlooked€through€his€window€and€observed€the€appellant.€€The€appellant€wasÏspeaking,€and€Baskin€opened€his€door€in€order€to€hear€the€appellant.€€At€thisÏpoint,€the€appellant€raised€a€weapon€and€shot€Baskin€twice€in€the€chest.€€BaskinÏimmediately€got€back€into€his€truck€and€began€to€drive€away.€€The€appellantÏcontinued€to€fire€his€weapon,€striking€Baskin€four€more€times.ÌÌà àUpon€their€arrival€at€the€scene,€the€police€searched€the€appellantððs€truck,Ïrecovering€the€following€items:€a€.30€caliber€rifle€containing€18€rounds€ofÏammunition,€a€.25€caliber€semi„automatic€pistol€containing€seven€rounds€ofÏammunition,€and€a€ð ðlong„bladeðð€knife.€€The€rifle€was€capable€of€holding€31Ïrounds€of€ammunition:€30€rounds€in€the€magazine€and€one€round€in€theÏchamber.€€The€pistol€was€capable€of€holding€seven€rounds:€six€in€the€magazineÏand€one€in€the€chamber.€€The€safety€mechanism€had€been€deactivated€on€bothÏweapons.€€The€police€found€thirteen€.30€caliber€spent€casings€in€the€generalÏvicinity€of€the€shooting.ÌÌà àDr.€Melissa€Trekell,€the€physician€who€treated€the€victim,€also€testified€atÏtrial.€€She€stated€that€Baskin€suffered€six€gunshot€wounds€in€the€chest.€€SheÍfurther€described€Baskinððs€condition€and€treatment:ÌÓÓà8 àMr.€Baskin€came€in€and€he€had€sucking€chest€wounds.€€And€whenÏyou€breathe€and€you€have€holes€in€your€chest,€air€travels€in€andÏout.€€And€we€put€chest€tubes€in,€which€are€drainage€tubes,€to€bothÏsides€of€his€chest€when€he€arrived€in€the€emergency€room.€€HisÏblood€pressure€was€stabilized€and€subsequently€dropped€again,Ïand€he€continued€bleeding.€€And€so€we€took€him€to€surgery€to€doÏwhat€we€call€an€exploratory€thoracotomy,€where€we€actually€openÏhis€chest,€his€right€chest,€and€take€a€look€and€see€whatððs€bleeding.Ï.€.€.€€He€had€a€laceration€in€his€lung,€he€had€a€tear€in€his€lung.€€AndÏalso€at€his€exit€wounds€here€in€his€anterior€chest,€he€had€bleedingÏintercostal€vessels,€which€are€blood€vessels€that€lie€right€underÏyour€ribs.ÌÌÓÓAccording€to€Dr.€Trekell,€Baskin€almost€died.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€did€not€testify,€but€introduced€the€testimony€of€variousÏfamily€members.€€The€appellantððs€brother,€Richard€Skidmore,€testified€that€theÏappellant€had€always€possessed€a€ð ðsuspicious€natureðð€and€did€not€respond€wellÏto€teasing.€€Skidmore€further€indicated€that€his€brother€had€a€history€of€alcoholÏabuse,€but€had€stopped€drinking€in€1987€or€1988.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€Moreover,€according€to€theÏappellantððs€brother,€after€resigning€from€his€job€at€Pathway€Bellows,€a€companyÏin€Oak€Ridge,€Tennessee,€in€1989,€and€following€his€divorce€in€1991,€theÏappellant€ð ðbegan€to€just€act€bizarre.ðð€€The€appellant€was€ð ðwithdrawn€andÏparanoid.ðð€€Additionally,€despite€financial€difficulties,€the€appellant€began€to€giveÏaway€valuable€personal€belongings.€€Skidmore€conceded€during€cross„examination€that,€although€his€brother€sometimes€carried€a€rifle€in€his€vehicle,ÏSkidmore€never€believed€that€his€brother€was€dangerous.ÌÌà àHenry€Shuler,€the€appellantððs€brother„in„law,€testified€that,€prior€to€hisÏdivorce€in€1991,€the€appellant€was€a€ð ðjolly€good€fellow.ðð€€Following€his€divorce,Ïthe€appellant€began€to€behave€oddly,€isolating€himself€from€family€and€friends.€ÏOn€one€occasion,€approximately€one€year€prior€to€the€shooting,€the€appellantÏarrived€at€Shulerððs€home€at€12:00€a.m.€or€1:00€a.m.,€claiming€that€he€was€beingÏpursued€by€the€police.€€Shuler€could€find€no€evidence€of€any€pursuit.ÌÌà àCarl€McGill,€a€trusty€at€the€Blount€County€Jail,€testified€that,€when€theÏappellant€was€first€admitted€to€the€jail,€he€sat€in€a€corner€and€ate€a€pencil.€ÏRichard€Skidmore€and€Henry€Shuler€visited€the€appellant€at€the€jail€followingÏthe€appellantððs€arrest.€€The€appellant€appeared€disoriented€and€depressed.€€HeÏwhispered€throughout€their€conversation,€because€he€believed€that€hisÏconversations€were€being€monitored€by€personnel€at€the€jail.€€He€also€statedÏthat€his€life€was€in€danger€at€the€jail.€€Finally,€he€asked€his€brother€and€brother„in„law€to€remove€their€jackets,€because€they€were€the€color€of€the€walls€at€theÏjail€and€indicated€that€Skidmore€and€Shuler€were€a€part€of€ð ðthe€system.ðð€€WhileÏincarcerated€in€the€jail,€the€appellant€attempted€suicide.ÌÌà àDr.€Eric€Engum,€a€clinical€psychologist,€testified€on€behalf€of€theÍappellant.€€He€testified€that€the€appellant€had€informed€him€that€the€appellantððsÏco„workers€at€the€Nippondenso€Plant€had€harassed€and€intimidated€him.€ÏSpecifically,€according€to€the€appellant,€the€victim,€Baskin,€drove€a€cart€withÏwhich€he€would€frequently€attempt€to€block€the€appellantððs€path.€€His€co„workersÏalso€signaled€to€one€another€for€the€purpose€of€harassing€the€appellant.€€TheÏappellant€believed€that,€if€he€did€not€act,€someone€would€harm€him.€€TheÏappellant€particularly€felt€threatened€by€the€various€military€jackets€worn€by€theÏvictim.€€Accordingly,€he€decided€to€confront€Baskin€on€the€morning€of€DecemberÏ17,€1992.€€Baskin€arrived€at€the€Nippondenso€plant€and€parked€his€truck.€€At€thisÏpoint,€the€appellant€believed€that€the€victim€was€reaching€for€a€weapon,€and€heÏbegan€firing€his€rifle€at€the€victim.ÌÌà àDr.€Engum€diagnosed€the€appellant€as€suffering€from€alcohol€abuse,Ïdepression,€and€a€mixed€personality€disorder.€€The€mixed€personality€disorderÏcomprised€components€of€three€different€disorders,€including€paranoid,Ïantisocial,€and€narcissistic€disorders.€€Dr.€Engum€characterized€the€appellantððsÏmental€state€as€a€ð ðsiege€mentality.ðð€€He€further€explained:ÌÓÓà8 àI€think€it€is€very€evident€from€all€of€the€facts€that€in€no€way€could€[theÏappellant]€realistically€or€objectively€appraise€the€nature€andÏaspects€of€his€interactions€with€Baskin.€€He€was€misinterpretingÏand€distorting€anything€that€Baskin€did€in€a€very€paranoid,Ïsuspicious,€delusional€fashion.ÌÌÓÓNevertheless,€Dr.€Engum€concluded€that€the€appellant€was€mentally€competentÍto€stand€trial.€€He€also€concluded€that€the€appellant€was€not€insane,€as€theÏappellant€understood€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€and€was€capable€ofÏconforming€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.ÌÌà àDr.€Ahmed€Farooque,€a€psychiatrist€who€examined€the€appellant€at€theÏMiddle€Tennessee€Mental€Health€Institute,€testified€on€behalf€of€the€State.€€HeÏalso€diagnosed€the€appellant€as€suffering€from€alcohol€dependence,€dysthymia,Ïwhich€is€ð ða€low„grade,€chronic€depression,ðð€and€a€non„specific€personalityÏdisorder,€including€components€of€antisocial,€narcissistic,€histrionic,€andÏborderline€personality€disorders.€€He€too€determined€that€the€appellant€wasÏmentally€competent€to€stand€trial€and€that€his€mental€condition€could€not€supportÏa€defense€of€insanity.€€Dr.€Farooque€opined€that,€while€the€appellantððs€disorderÏmight€significantly€impair€his€ability€to€function€socially€or€occupationally,€theÏdisorder€would€not€necessarily€impair€his€ð ðthinking€capacity.ððœ× ƒ2 ××  ×›ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€ofÏattempted€first€degree€murder.€€On€October€5,€1995,€the€trial€court€conducted€aÍsentencing€hearing.€€At€the€hearing,€the€State€relied€upon€the€pre„sentenceÏreport€and€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial.€€The€appellant€testified€on€his€ownÏbehalf.€€The€appellant€recounted€that,€following€his€resignation€from€PathwayÏBellows€and€his€divorce,€he€began€to€believe€that€he€was€being€followed.€€At€theÏsentencing€hearing,€he€could€not€recall€why€he€believed€he€was€being€followedÏor€by€whom,€although€he€did€recall€believing€that€the€F.B.I.€was€monitoring€hisÏmovements.€€In€any€case,€he€began€to€keep€his€window€blinds€closed€and€hisÏdoors€locked€at€all€times.€€He€also€propped€chairs€underneath€his€door€handlesÏin€order€to€barricade€the€doors.€€At€work,€he€believed€that€the€victim,€Baskin,€wasÏharassing€him,€including€placing€two€garottes× ƒ3 ××  ×€on€the€appellantððs€cart€andÏthreatening€the€appellant.€€The€appellant€believed€that€the€colors€of€BaskinððsÏmilitary€jacket€signified€death.€€Ultimately,€he€decided€to€confront€the€appellant.€ÏThe€Sunday€prior€to€the€shooting,€he€purchased€the€.30€caliber€rifle.€€However,Ïthe€appellant€testified€that€he€only€shot€Baskin€on€the€morning€of€December€17,Ï1992,€because€he€believed€that€the€victim€was€reaching€for€a€weapon.€€TheÏappellant€stated€at€the€sentencing€hearing:ÌÓÓà8 àAnyway,€I€donððt€know€„„€I€donððt€know€exactly€„„€thatððs€the€straight€ofÏit.€€The€man€[Baskin]€sat€here€and€lied.€€I€know€itððs€a€mess.€€YouÏknow,€anytime€you€shed€someoneððs€blood,€thatððs€wrong.€€But€whatÏhappened,€to€me,€was€self„defense.€€You€all€call€it€how€you€see€it.ÌÌÓÓThe€appellant€claimed€that€he€was€sorry€for€what€had€transpired.ÌÌà àIn€sentencing€the€appellant€to€twenty„three€years€incarceration€in€theÏTennessee€Department€of€Correction,€the€trial€court€found€several€mitigatingÏfactors,€including:ÌÓÓà8 à(8)€€The€appellant€was€suffering€from€a€mental€condition€thatÏsignificantly€reduced€his€culpability€for€the€offense;Ìà8 à(10)€The€appellant€assisted€the€authorities€in€locating€orÏrecovering€any€property€or€person€involved€in€the€crime;Ìà8 à(13)€The€appellant€has€no€significant€criminal€record.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113€(1990).€€The€court€then€found€the€followingÏenhancement€factors:ÌÓÓà8 à(6)€The€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€the€victim€were€particularlyÏgreat;Ìà8 à(9)€The€appellant€employed€or€possessed€a€firearm€during€theÏcommission€of€the€offense;€andÌÌà8 à(16)€The€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€whichÏthe€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(1995€Supp.).ÌÌà@ àò òòòII.€€Analysisóóó óÌò òÓÓa.à àProposed€Jury€Instruction€Concerning€Attempted€VoluntaryÏà àœà àManslaughter›× ƒ4 ××  ×ó óÌÓÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€instruct€theÏjury€concerning€the€offense€of€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter.€€A€trial€judgeÏmust€give€a€correct€and€complete€charge€of€the€law€applicable€to€the€facts€of€theÏcase.€€òòState€v.€Ruaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€766,€782€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.ÏPhippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€138,€139€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Accordingly,€defendantsÏare€entitled€to€jury€instructions€on€all€offenses€which€are€a€lesser€grade€or€classÏof€the€charged€offense,€òòif€the€evidence€would€support€a€conviction€for€theÏoffenseóó.€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€311€(Tenn.€1996);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„18„110(a)€(1990).€€Conversely,€"the€giving€of€instructions€on€offenses€forÏwhich€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€is€to€be€avoided."€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€751ÏS.W.2d€167,€170€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€ÌÌà àAttempted€voluntary€manslaughter€is€a€lesser€grade€of€attempted€firstÏdegree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€òòTrustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€311.€€Voluntary€manslaughter€ð ðis€theÏintentional€or€knowing€killing€of€another€in€a€state€of€passion€produced€byÍadequate€provocation€òòsufficient€to€lead€a€reasonable€person€to€act€in€anÏirrational€manneróó.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„211(a)€(1991)€(emphasis€added).€ÏMoreover,€ð ð[a]€person€commits€criminal€attempt€who,€òòacting€with€the€kind€ofÏculpability€otherwise€required€for€the€offenseóó:€œ.€.€.›€Acts€with€intent€to€complete€aÏcourse€of€action€or€cause€a€result€that€would€constitute€the€offense,€under€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€as€the€person€believes€them€to€be,€andÏthe€conduct€constitutes€a€substantial€step€toward€the€commission€of€theÏoffense.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„12„101(a)(3)€(emphasis€added).× ƒ5 ××  ×€€Arguably,€theÏevidence€adduced€at€trial€does€not€support€a€finding€that€the€appellant€was€in€aÏstate€of€passion€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€Clearly,€the€record€does€not€supportÏa€finding€of€adequate€provocation.€€The€appellant€disputes€the€lack€of€evidenceÏconcerning€passion,€but€concedes€that€any€provocation€was€the€product€of€theÏappellantððs€delusional€mental€state.€€Nevertheless,€he€contends€that,€for€theÏpurpose€of€determining€whether€there€existed€provocation€adequate€to€supportÏa€conviction€for€voluntary€manslaughter,€the€applicable€standard€is€a€subjectiveÏstandard,€i.e.,€whether€a€reasonable€person,€suffering€the€appellantððs€delusions,Ïwould€have€been€provoked.€€The€State€contends€that€this€standard€isÏð ðoxymoronic,ðð€as€a€reasonable€person€would€not€have€suffered€the€appellantððsÏdelusions.ÌÌà àIn€support€of€his€proposition,€the€appellant€cites€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€28€S.W.2dÏ993€(Tenn.€1930).€€In€òòDavisóó,€28€S.W.2d€at€993„994,€the€appellant€had€beenÏconvicted€of€second€degree€murder.€€At€the€time€of€the€offense,€the€appellantÏwas€ð ðlaboring€under€an€insane€delusionðð€that€his€wife€and€the€victim€wereÏconducting€an€affair.€€òòIdóó.€€There€was€no€basis€whatever€for€this€belief.€€òòIdóó.€€TheÏappellant€encountered€the€victim€at€a€service€station€and€began€to€curse€theÏvictim€ð ðwith€the€utmost€violence.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Witnesses€testified€that€the€victim€in€noÏway€threatened€the€appellant,€although€the€appellant€claimed€that€the€victimÏappeared€to€reach€for€a€weapon.€€òòIdóó.€€The€appellant€shot€the€victim€severalÏtimes,€returned€to€the€garage,€sat€down,€and€awaited€the€arrival€of€the€police.€€òòIdóó.€ÏThe€Supreme€Court€reversed€the€appellantððs€conviction€for€second€degreeÏmurder.€€Citing€the€òòMcNaughtenóó€standard,€the€court€specifically€rejected€theÏapplication€of€the€insanity€defense.€€òòIdóó.€at€995„996.€€Nevertheless,€the€courtÏconcluded€that€the€appellantððs€delusions€precluded€a€finding€of€malice.€€òòIdóó.€atÏ996„997.€€Moreover,€the€court€observed:ÌÓÓà8 àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that,€if,€as€a€matter€of€fact,€the€deceased€hadÏdebauched€the€wife€of€the€plaintiff€in€error,€and€the€plaintiff€in€errorÏhad€been€apprised€of€that€fact€and€had€become€convinced€of€itsÏtruth€on€the€day€of€the€wedding€or€thereafter,€and,€with€reasonableÏexpedition,€while€under€the€influence€of€passion€and€agitationÏproduced€by€such€information,€had€killed€[the€victim],€he€wouldÏonly€have€been€guilty€of€voluntary€manslaughter.ÌÌà8 à[According€to]€òòMcNaughtenððs€Caseóó€œ.€.€.›€and€those€following€it€aÏhomicide€committed€under€an€insane€delusion€is€excusable,€if€theÍnotion€embodied€in€the€delusion€and€believed€to€be€a€fact,€if€a€factÏindeed,€would€have€excused€the€defendant.ÌÌà8 àð ðManslaughter€is€the€unlawful€killing€of€another€without€malice,Ïeither€express€or€implied,€which€may€be€either€voluntary€upon€aÏsudden€heat,€or€involuntary€œ.€.€.›€ð ðÌÌà8 àSuch€being€the€law,€it€ensues€that€plaintiff€in€error€would€haveÏbeen€guilty€of€manslaughter€only,€if,€when€he€was€first€obsessedÏby€this€insane€conceit,€acting€under€the€passion€and€agitationÏthereby€produced,€he€had€killed€[the€victim].ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€996.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€122€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992),€thisÏcourt,€noting€the€continuing€vitality€of€òòDavisóó,€suggested€that€ð ðthe€holding€in€òòDavisóóÏindicated€an€acceptance€of€the€proposition€that€an€abnormal€mental€conditionÏshort€of€insanity,€as€then€defined,€could€be€used€to€negate€the€state€of€mindÏelements,€including€malice,€required€for€first€or€second€degree€murder.ðð€€TheÏcourt€then€noted€the€change€in€the€insanity€standard€mandated€by€òòGraham€v.ÏStateóó,€547€S.W.2d€531,€543€(Tenn.€1977).€€òòSee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501€(a)€(1991)€(codifying€the€criteria€of€criminal€insanity€which€have€beenÏfollowed€in€Tennessee€since€the€òòGrahamóó€decision).€€The€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àUnder€the€òòGrahamóó€test,€the€cornerstone€of€a€defense€to€homicideÏunder€òòDavisóó€must€be€that€the€defendantððs€state€of€mind€at€the€timeÏof€the€offense€had€to€be€the€product€of€a€mental€disease€or€defect,Ïnot€just€any€mental€condition.€€If€the€mental€disease€or€defectÏproduced€a€delusion€and€the€notion€embodied€in€the€delusion€andÏbelieved€to€be€a€fact€would€have€excused€the€defendantððs€conductÏif€the€notion€were€indeed€a€fact,€then€the€conduct€committed€underÏsuch€a€delusion€is,€likewise,€excusable.ÌÌÓÓòòSheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€122.ÌÌà àIn€òòPhippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€148,€this€court€observed€that€the€ð ðentire€line€ofÏcases€from€òòDavisóó€to€òòSheltonóó,€though€frequently€not€using€the€term€ððdiminishedÏcapacity,ðð€supports€the€conclusion€that€evidence€of€an€accusedððs€state€of€mind€atÏthe€time€of€the€offense€is€admissible€in€Tennessee€to€negate€the€existence€of€theÏrequisite€element€of€intent.ðð€€However,€the€court€emphasized€that€ð ðòòdiminishedÏcapacity€is€not€a€defense€that€absolves€the€accused€from€culpabilityóó;€rather,€it€isÏa€rule€of€evidence€which€allows€the€introduction€€of€evidence€to€negate€theÏexistence€of€specific€intent€when€a€defendant€is€charged€with€a€specific€intentÏcrime.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€143€(emphasis€added).€€ÌÌà àIn€òòPhippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€144,€we€additionally€cited€òòmodel€penal€codeóó€ððÏ4.02€Proposed€Official€Draft€1962),€which€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àEvidence€that€the€defendant€suffered€from€a€mental€disease€orÏdefect€is€admissible€whenever€it€is€relevant€to€prove€that€theÏdefendant€did€or€did€not€have€a€state€of€mind€that€is€an€element€ofÏthe€offense.ÌÌÓÓThe€court€noted€that€the€legislature,€in€revising€the€criminal€code€in€1989,€failedÏto€include€a€similar€provision€among€the€general€and€affirmative€defenses€setÏforth€in€the€statute.€€òòPhippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€148.€€However,€the€court€againÏemphasized€that€the€theory€of€ð ðdiminished€capacityðð€applicable€in€Tennessee€isÍpurely€evidentiary€and€not€a€means€to€excuse€or€justify€a€criminal€offense€and€ÌÌobserved€that€ð ð[t]he€criminal€code€does€not€purport€to€establish€rules€ofÏrelevance.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€149.ÌÌà àThis€court€specifically€distinguished€ð ðdiminished€capacityðð€fromÏð ðdiminished€responsibility,ðð€rejecting€the€latter.€€òòIdóó.€at€143„144.€€Similarly,€theÏdrafters€of€the€Model€Penal€Code,€in€rejecting€diminished€responsibility€as€anÏalternative€ground€for€reducing€murder€to€manslaughter,€explained€that€casesÏmay€arise€where€evidence€of€a€mental€disorder€disproves€intent€to€kill,€i.e.,Ïcases€of€diminished€capacity,€òòbutóó€the€reduction€of€murder€to€manslaughter€mayÏbe€accomplished€òòonlyóó€through€a€rule€of€provocation.€€The€drafters€explained€theÏconcept€of€diminished€responsibility:ÌÓÓà8 àUnlike€provocation,€diminished€responsibility€is€entirely€subjectiveÏin€character.€€It€looks€into€the€actors€mind€to€see€whether€he€shouldÏbe€judged€by€a€lesser€standard€than€that€applicable€to€ordinaryÏmen.€€It€recognizes€the€defendantððs€own€mental€disorder€orÏemotional€instability€as€a€basis€for€partially€excusing€his€conduct.ÌÌÓÓComment,€òòmodel€penal€codeóó€ðð€210.3.€€The€theory€of€diminished€responsibility,Ïunlike€the€theory€of€diminished€capacity€described€in€òòPhippsóó,€òòisóó€a€defense.€ÏTherefore,€we€conclude,€in€contrast€to€the€òòPhippsóó€case,€that€the€legislatureððsÏomission€of€this€defense€from€the€1989€Criminal€Code€reflects€its€rejection€ofÏthis€theory.€€€ÌÌà àAlthough€under€the€Model€Penal€Code€provocation€is€not€entirelyÏsubjective,€the€Model€Penal€Code€does€place€far€more€emphasis€than€does€theÏcommon€law€on€the€actorððs€subjective€mental€state.€€òòModel€Penal€Codeóó€ððÏ210.3(1)(b)€(emphasis€added)€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àCriminal€homicide€constitutes€manslaughter€when€œ.€.€.›€a€homicideÏwhich€would€otherwise€be€murder€is€committed€under€theÏinfluence€of€extreme€mental€or€emotional€disturbance€for€whichÏthere€is€reasonable€explanation€or€excuse.€€òòThe€reasonablenessÏof€such€explanation€or€excuse€shall€be€determined€from€theÏviewpoint€of€a€person€in€the€actorððs€situation€under€theÏcircumstances€as€he€believes€them€to€beóó.ÌÌÌÌÓÓThe€drafters€noted:ÌÓÓà8 à[T]he€Model€Code€qualifies€the€rigorous€objectivity€with€which€theÏcommon€law€determined€adequacy€of€provocation.€.€.€.€The€criticalÏelement€in€the€Model€Code€formulation€is€the€clause€requiring€thatÏreasonableness€be€assessed€ð ðfrom€the€viewpoint€of€a€person€inÏthe€actorððs€situation.ðð€€The€word€ð ðsituationðð€is€designedlyÏambiguous.€€On€the€one€hand,€it€is€clear€that€personal€handicapsÏand€some€external€circumstances€must€be€taken€into€account.€.€.€.€ÏOn€the€other€hand,€it€is€equally€plain€that€idiosyncratic€moralÏvalues€are€not€part€of€an€actorððs€situation.€.€.€.€€In€between€theseÏtwo€extremes,€.€.€.€abnormally€fearful€temperament€may€.€.€.€serve€toÏdifferentiate€an€individual€actor€from€the€hypothetical€reasonableÏman,€yet€none€of€these€factors€is€wholly€irrelevant€to€the€ultimateÏissue€of€credibility.€.€.€.€€The€Model€Code€endorses€a€formulationÏthat€affords€sufficient€flexibility€to€differentiate€in€particular€casesÏbetween€those€special€aspects€of€the€actorððs€situation€that€shouldÏbe€deemed€material€for€purpose€of€grading€and€those€that€shouldÏbe€ignored.ÌÌÓÓComment,€òòModel€Penal€Codeóó€ðð€210.3.€€Our€legislature€declined€in€1989€to€adoptÍthe€Model€Penal€Codeððs€approach€to€provocation,€signaling€its€intention€toÏadhere€to€the€common€law€objective€standard.€€Applying€an€objective€standard,Ïthe€record€contains€no€evidence€of€provocation,€and€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òb.à àSufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óÌà àThe€appellant€next€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€supportingÏhis€conviction.€€A€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€withÏwhich€a€defendant€is€initially€cloaked€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€onÏappeal€a€convicted€defendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€theÏevidence€is€insufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€ÏThe€defendant€must€establish€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€soÏdeficient€that€no€"reasonable€trier€of€fact"€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443ÏU.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,Ï259€(Tenn.€1994);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).ÌÌà àMoreover,€an€appellate€court€may€neither€reweigh€nor€reevaluate€theÏevidence€when€determining€its€sufficiency.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,Ï835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€theÏweight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raisedÏby€the€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€and€not€the€appellate€courts.€ÏòòState€v.€Pruettóó,€788€S.W.2d€559,€561€(Tenn.€1990).€€"A€jury€verdict€approved€byÍthe€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State€andÏresolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State's€theory."€€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657ÏS.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€€The€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÏtherefrom.€€òòId.óó€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).ÌÌà àThe€State€may€prove€a€criminal€offense€by€direct€evidence,€circumstantialÏevidence,€or€a€combination€of€the€two.€€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€899„900€(Tenn.€1987).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€541€(Tenn.Ï1992)(ð ðthe€cases€have€long€recognized€that€the€necessary€elements€of€first„degree€murder€may€be€shown€by€circumstantial€evidenceðð).€€Before€a€jury€mayÏconvict€a€defendant€of€a€criminal€offense€based€upon€circumstantial€evidenceÏalone,€the€facts€and€circumstances€"must€be€so€strong€and€cogent€as€to€excludeÏevery€other€reasonable€hypothesis€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant,€and€thatÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€470€S.W.2d€610,€612€(Tenn.Ï1971).€€€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€577€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993).€€As€in€the€case€of€direct€evidence,€the€weight€to€be€given€circumstantialÏevidence€and€ð ððð[t]he€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€such€evidence,€and€the€extentÏto€which€the€circumstances€are€consistent€with€guilt€and€inconsistent€withÏinnocence,€are€questions€primarily€for€the€jury.ðððð€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€313€S.W.2dÏ451,€457€(Tenn.€1958)(citation€omitted).ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€this€offense,€the€relevant€statute€defined€first€degree€murderÏas€"[a]n€intentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing€of€another."€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1).€€Again,€ð ð[a]€person€commits€criminal€attempt€who,€actingÏwith€the€kind€of€culpability€otherwise€required€for€the€offense:€œ.€.€.›€Acts€with€intentÏto€complete€a€course€of€action€or€cause€a€result€that€would€constitute€theÏoffense,€under€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€as€the€personÏbelieves€them€to€be,€and€the€conduct€constitutes€a€substantial€step€toward€theÏcommission€of€the€offense.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„12„101(a)(3).€€As€to€theÏrequisite€culpability,€a€person€acts€intentionally€ð ðwith€respect€to€the€nature€of€theÏconduct€or€to€a€result€of€the€conduct€when€it€is€the€personððs€conscious€objectiveÏor€desire€to€engage€in€the€conduct€or€cause€the€result."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(18)€(1991).€€Additionally,€premeditation€necessitates€"a€previouslyÏformed€design€or€intent€to€kill,"€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.Ï1992),€and€"the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment,"€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201(b)(2)€(1991).€€Deliberation€requires€a€"cool€purpose"€and€the€absence€ofÏ"passion€or€provocation."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201(b)(1)€and€SentencingÏCommission€Comments.× ƒ6 ××  ×ÌÌà àGenerally,€the€State€has€the€burden€of€establishing€premeditation€andÍdeliberation.€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€543.€€Again,€although€the€jury€may€notÏengage€in€speculation,€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995),€the€jury€may€infer€premeditation€andÏdeliberation€from€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€killing.€€òòGentryóó,€881€S.W.2dÏat€3.€€Our€supreme€court€has€delineated€several€circumstances€which€may€beÏindicative€of€premeditation€and€deliberation,€including€the€use€of€a€deadlyÏweapon€upon€an€unarmed€victim,€the€fact€that€the€killing€was€particularly€cruel,Ïdeclarations€by€the€defendant€of€his€intent€to€kill€the€victim,€and€the€making€ofÏpreparations€before€the€killing€for€the€purpose€of€concealing€the€crime.€€òòBrownóó,Ï836€S.W.2d€at€541„542.€€This€court€has€also€recently€noted€several€factors€fromÏwhich€the€jury€may€infer€the€two€elements,€including€planning€activity€by€theÏdefendant€before€the€killing,€evidence€concerning€the€defendantððs€motive,€andÏthe€nature€of€the€killing.€€€òòBordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€222€(òòquotingóó€2€W.€LaFave€andÏA.€Scott,€Jr.,€òòSubstantive€Criminal€Lawóó€ðð€7.7€(1986)).ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€forÏattempted€first€degree€murder.€€In€summary,€approximately€two€weeks€prior€toÏthe€offense,€the€appellant€stated€to€a€co„worker€that€he€was€thinking€aboutÏð ðkilling€me€a€goddam€buck.ðð€€The€State€argued€at€trial€that€the€appellant€wasÏreferring€to€the€victim,€who€is€African„American.€€Moreover,€several€days€prior€toÏthe€shooting,€the€appellant€stated€to€a€co„worker€that€he€would€no€longerÏtolerate€harassment€by€fellow€employees.€€The€afternoon€before€the€shooting,Íthe€appellant€indicated€that€he€might€no€longer€be€working€at€the€plant.€€On€theÏmorning€of€the€shooting,€the€appellant€arrived€at€the€plant€two€hours€early,€at€theÏtime€Baskin€was€scheduled€to€arrive.€€He€waited€in€the€area€of€the€parking€lotÏwhere€Baskin€always€parked€his€truck,€armed€with€a€fully€loaded€.30€caliber€rifle,Ïa€fully€loaded€.25€caliber€semi„automatic€pistol,€and€a€knife.€€The€appellant€shotÏBaskin,€who€was€unarmed,€six€times€in€the€chest.€€The€appellant€then€sat€in€hisÏtruck€and€smoked€a€cigarette.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€ÌÌà àThe€appellantððs€contention€that€his€mental€condition€precludedÏpremeditation€and€deliberation€was€submitted€to€the€jury.€€The€trial€courtÏinstructed€the€jury:ÌÓÓà8 àEvidence€has€been€submitted€in€this€case€by€the€defense€and€theÏstate€concerning€the€defendantððs€mental€condition.€€This€evidenceÏshould€be€considered€by€you,€specifically€in€reference€to€whetherÏor€not€the€defendant€possessed€the€necessary€deliberation€orÏpremeditation€which€are€elements€of€murder€in€the€first€degree,€orÏknowledge€which€is€an€element€of€murder€in€the€second€degree.ÌÌà8 àWhile€this€evidence€may€not€establish€a€defense€wherein€theÏdefendant€would€be€found€not€guilty€of€any€offense,€it€may€beÏconsidered€by€you€in€deliberating€upon€the€necessary€elements€ofÏmurder€in€the€first€degree€or€murder€in€the€second€degree.€€As€IÏinstructed€you€earlier,€should€you€find€that€the€necessary€elementsÏof€any€of€the€grades€of€homicide€are€not€present,€the€defendantÏmust€be€acquitted€as€to€that€charge.€€You€may€consider€evidenceÏof€the€defendantððs€mental€condition€along€with€other€relevantÏevidence€in€arriving€at€your€verdict.ÌÌÓÓÌà àAgain,€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€indicates€that€the€appellantÏpossesses,€at€least,€average€intelligence.€€Additionally,€Dr.€Farooque€testifiedÏthat€the€appellantððs€personality€disorder€does€not€impair€his€ð ðthinking€capacity.ðð€ÏIndeed,€while€incarcerated€at€the€Department€of€Correction€Special€NeedsÏFacility,€the€appellant€informed€Dr.€Farooque€that€he€was€not€suffering€anyÏmood€or€thought€disorder,€other€than€depression€as€a€result€of€his€divorce€inÏ1991.€€However,€he€admitted€experiencing€some€difficulty€controlling€his€temperÏand€also€conceded€that,€at€times,€he€overreacted€to€minor€incidents.€€Dr.ÏFarooque€further€testified€that,€while€incarcerated€at€the€Blount€County€Jail,€theÏappellant€had€been€prescribed€medication€normally€prescribed€to€ð ða€personÏwho€is€acutely€psychotic€or€has€a€history€of€seizures.ðð€€Dr.€Farooque€stated€that,Ïwhen€he€discontinued€the€appellantððs€medication,€the€appellant€ð ðdid€a€lotÏbetter.ðð€€Finally,€in€a€staff€conference€report,€Dr.€Farooque€recorded€the€followingÏobservations:ÌÓÓà8 àAt€the€time€of€admission€œ.€.€.,›€and€throughout€his€stay€at€this€facility,Ï[the€appellant€again€was€lucid€and€coherent€and€gave€noÏindications€of€a€severe€mental€illness.€€He€was€alert,€well€orientedÏand€cooperative€throughout€his€stay.€€His€behavior€on€theÏresidential€unit€was€suggestive€of€a€mild€level€of€depression,Ïhowever€he€did€not€experience€difficulties€eating€or€sleeping€andÏhe€interacted€with€his€peers€and€the€staff.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€Skidmoreððs€responsesÍto€questions€were€not€suggestive€of€one€with€a€severe€thoughtÏdisorder€or€an€inability€to€accurately€perceive€reality.€€There€wasÏno€suggestion€of€him€hallucinating,€and€he€did€not€claim€to€haveÏbeen€hearing€voices€or€having€unusual€visual€experiences.€ÏSkidmoreððs€comments€raised€the€question€of€paranoid€thinkingÏand€a€general€mistrust€of€others.€€His€vocabulary€wasÏrepresentative€of€someone€with€a€high€school€education,€and€hisÏreasoning€and€judgement€did€not€appear€impaired.€€ÌÌà8 à.€.€.€[The€appellantððs]€perceptions€of€the€victim€are€not€accurate€andÏmay€be€the€product€of€his€alcohol€dependence.€€.€.€.€[The€appellant]Ïreports€that€he€shot€at€[the€victim]€because€he€thought€Baskin€wasÏgoing€for€a€weapon,€and€he€believed€it€was€appropriate€to€respondÏin€self„defense.ÌÌÓÓ(Footnote€added).€€Certainly,€the€record€contains€sufficient€evidence€to€supportÏa€finding€by€the€jury,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€that€the€appellantððs€mentalÏcondition€did€not€preclude€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€With€respect€to€theÏtestimony€of€the€defense€expert,€Dr.€Engum,€the€evaluation€of€expert€testimonyÏis€the€province€of€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€No.€02C01„9503„CC„00083Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1996).€ÏAccordingly,€the€jury€was€free€to€disregard€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Engum€in€light€ofÏother€evidence€adduced€at€trial.€€€ÌÌò òc.à àSentencingó óÌà àFinally,€the€appellant€contends€that€his€offense€does€not€warrant€aÏsentence€of€twenty„three€years€incarceration€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€ÏReview,€by€this€court,€of€the€length€of€a€sentence€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumptionÍthat€the€determination€made€by€the€trial€court€is€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€This€presumption€only€applies,€however,€if€the€recordÏdemonstrates€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169Ï(Tenn.€1991).€€If€the€trial€court€applies€inappropriate€factors€or€otherwise€fails€toÏcomply€with€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€the€presumption€of€correctness€falls.€ÏòòSheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€123.€€In€the€instant€case,€we€afford€the€trial€courtððsÏdetermination€the€presumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà àIn€any€event,€the€appellant€bears€the€burden€of€establishing€that€theÏsentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€erroneous.€€òòState€v.€Leeóó,€No.€03C01„9308„CR„00275€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€April€4,€1995).€€In€determiningÏwhether€the€appellant€has€met€this€burden,€this€court€must€consider€the€factorsÏlisted€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b)(1995€Supp.)€and€the€sentencingÏprinciples€ÌÌdescribed€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102€(1995€Supp.)€and€ðð€40„35„103Ï(1990).ÌÌà àMoreover,€with€respect€to€the€length€of€a€sentence,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„210€(1990)€provides€that€the€minimum€sentence€within€the€appropriateÏrange€is€the€presumptive€sentence.€€If€there€are€enhancing€and€mitigatingÍfactors,€the€court€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence€in€the€range€and€enhanceÏthe€sentence€as€appropriate€for€the€enhancement€factors€and€then€reduce€theÏsentence€within€the€range€as€appropriate€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€òòIdóó.€€If€thereÏare€no€mitigating€factors,€the€court€may€set€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€inÏthat€range,€but€still€within€the€range.€€òòIdóó.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Diesóó,€829€S.W.2dÏ706,€710€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€"[T]here€is€no€particular€value€assigned€byÏthe€1989€Sentencing€Act€to€the€various€factors€and€the€'weight€affordedÏmitigating€or€enhancement€factors€derives€from€balancing€relative€degrees€ofÏculpability€within€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€of€the€case€involved.'"€€òòState€v.ÏMarshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€541€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)(citation€omitted).€€TheÏweight€assigned€to€any€existing€factor€is€generally€left€to€the€trial€judge'sÏdiscretion.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àInitially,€the€appellant€concedes€that€the€victimððs€injuries€were€particularlyÏgreat.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(6).€€However,€he€argues€that€the€ð ðrealÏreasonðð€for€his€sentence€of€twenty„three€years€is€that€ð ðthe€crime€was€committedÏunder€circumstances€under€which€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€wasÏgreat.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(16).€€He€contends€that€enhancementÏfactor€(16)€is€inapplicable€to€convictions€for€attempted€first€degree€murder,€asÏthe€factor€is€inherent€in€the€offense.€€Similarly,€he€argues€that€the€appellantððsÏuse€of€a€firearm€during€the€commission€of€the€offense€should€be€afforded€little€ifÏany€weight€in€sentencing€a€defendant€for€the€offense€of€attempted€first€degreeÍmurder.€€The€appellant€asserts€that€the€rationale€underlying€the€application€ofÏthis€factor€is€the€greater€danger€associated€with€the€use€of€a€firearm.€€He€statesÏin€his€brief,€ð ðThere€is€no€way€that€attempted€murder€can€be€anymore€dangerousÏthan€it€already€is.ðð€€ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(9),€this€court€hasÏpreviously€held€that€a€sentencing€court€may€consider€the€use€of€a€firearm€inÏenhancing€a€sentence€for€attempted€first€degree€murder.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.ÏGibsonóó,€No.€01C01„9503„CC„00099€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€January€26,Ï1996)(the€defendant€shot€the€victim€four€times).€€With€respect€to€the€applicationÏof€enhancement€factor€(16),€the€appellant€correctly€observes€that€great€potentialÏfor€bodily€injury€always€exists€with€an€attempted€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€Nixóó,€922€S.W.2d€894,€903€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ï(Tenn.€1996).€€However,€the€State€correctly€notes€that€this€factor€mayÏnevertheless€enhance€a€sentence€for€attempted€first€degree€murder€if€the€proofÏestablishes€a€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€persons€other€than€the€victim.€€òòState€v.ÏParkeróó,€No.€03C01„9307„CR„00214€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€NovemberÏ22,€1994),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995)(citing€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€868ÏS.W.2d€729,€732€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)).€€The€record€establishes€thatÏnumerous€employees,€in€addition€to€the€victim,€were€present€in€the€parking€lot€ofÏthe€Nippondenso€plant€as€the€appellant€fired€his€rifle€at€the€victimððs€truck€thirteenÍtimes.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€Accordingly,€in€this€case,€consideration€of€factor€(16)€is€appropriate.× ƒ: ××  ×ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€mitigating€factors,€the€appellant€argues€that,€in€addition€toÏthe€three€mitigating€factors€applied€by€the€sentencing€court,€the€record€supportsÏthe€application€of€mitigating€factor€(2),€that€the€appellant€acted€under€strongÏprovocation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113.€€We€have€already€concluded€thatÏthe€record€does€not€support€a€finding€of€provocation.€€ÌÌà àThe€State€contests€the€application€of€mitigating€factor€(10),€that€theÏappellant€assisted€the€authorities€in€locating€or€recovering€any€property€orÏperson€involved€in€the€crime.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113.€€Presumably,€theÏtrial€court€was€referring€to€the€appellantððs€voluntary€surrender€to€the€police.€€WeÏwill€assume,€for€the€purpose€of€this€opinion,€that€the€appellantððs€voluntaryÏsurrender€to€the€police€qualifies€as€assistance€to€the€police€within€the€meaningÏof€mitigating€factor€(10).€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€No.€03C01„9502„CR„00047Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€March€25,€1996);€òòState€v.€Farmeróó,€No.€03C01„9206„CR„00196€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€July€8,€1993).ÌÌà àThe€State€also€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€consideration€of€theÏappellantððs€lack€of€a€significant€criminal€history€as€a€mitigating€factor.€€The€StateÏcites,€in€support€of€its€argument,€òòState€v.€Keelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€422€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994).€€In€òòKeelóó,€this€court€refused€toÏconsider€the€appellantððs€lack€of€prior€felony€convictions€as€a€mitigating€factor€inÏlight€of€the€appellantððs€extensive€history€of€misdemeanor€convictions€andÏcriminal€behavior.× ƒ; ××  ×€€Similarly,€the€court€declined€to€consider€the€appellantððsÏstable€employment€history.€€The€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€vast€majority€of€citizens€residing€in€this€state€do€not€have€aÏprior€felony€conviction.€€If€this€court€permitted€an€accusedððsÏsentence€to€be€mitigated€for€this€reason,€it€would€be€inviting€theÏcriminal€element€of€our€society€to€engage€in€criminal€conductÏpunishable€as€a€misdemeanor.€€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àThe€fact€that€the€appellant€had€a€ððfairly€stable€employment€historyðð.Ï.€.€does€not€entitle€him€to€a€reduction€in€his€sentence.€€.€.€.€EveryÏcitizen€in€this€state€is€expected€to€have€a€stable€work€history€if€the€ÌÌà8 àeconomy€permits€the€citizen€to€work,€the€citizen€is€not€disabled,€orÏthe€citizen€is€not€independently€wealthy.ÌÌÓÓòòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Yankeeóó,€No.€03C01„9507„CC„00200€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏKnoxville,€August€6,€1996),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1997)€(ð ðthe€lack€of€aÏfelony€conviction€and€a€stable€work€history€do€not€entitle€an€accused€to€aÍreduction€in€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€courtðð).€€Moreover,€this€court€hasÏstated€more€broadly€that€the€lack€of€òòanyóó€criminal€record€will€not€mitigate€aÏsentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Garrisonóó,€No.€01C01„9407„CC„00236€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ïat€Nashville,€September€20,€1995),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1996)(ð ðtheÏlegislature€did€not€intend€the€absence€of€a€prior€criminal€record€to€be€aÏmitigating€factor€because€citizens€are€not€expected€to€have€a€criminal€recordðð);ÏòòState€v.€Derrickóó,€No.€181€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€December€6,Ï1990)(ð ð[o]bviously€the€legislature€chose€not€to€include€[the€absence€of€a€criminalÏrecord]€as€a€[mitigating]€factor€because€citizens€are€not€expected€to€haveÏcriminal€recordsðð).€€Yet,€this€court€has€also€observed€that,€while€a€court€is€notÏrequired€to€do€so,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113€(13)€allows€a€court€to€considerÏthe€absence€of€a€criminal€record€as€a€mitigating€factor.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€920ÏS.W.2d€247,€261€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.Ï1996).€€Similarly,€this€court€has€observed€that€consideration€of€the€absence€of€aÏcriminal€history€is€consistent€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€sentencingÏact.€€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€457€n.2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€toÏappeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995).€€ÌÌà àIn€any€event,€while€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€appellant€is€notÏð ðthe€worst€possible€person€under€our€law€that€could€commit€this€offense,ðð€theÏapplicable€enhancement€factors€amply€justify€a€sentence€of€twenty„three€years.€ÏWe€reach€this€conclusion€even€in€light€of€the€trial€courtððs€further€determination€ÌÌÌÌthat€the€appellant€was€suffering€from€a€mental€condition€that€significantlyÏreduced€his€culpability€for€the€offense.× ƒ< ××  ×ÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.̛̜œÌ›ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOSEPH€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€Judge