ÿWPC÷ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0lH 0D´ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` 0dÕ B9U>VU *”B)¾DCç AM*wv~ŽvÓ  D3ß 0@ AORÆ¡ 0Dg D/« BÚ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLüÏ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ÄDÅÆeÇDÈÉUÊDËUÌÓ€ØR¦"3|xØ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  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`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òJune€10,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ7€Ö3XXdìdÈ7ÑÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€"ŠÔò òÔ€#ÔÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌ̜ـ€ÙßR€&'%A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àDECEMBER€SESSION,€1996ÌÌ€ÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9602„CC„00066Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àMcMINN€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€R.€STEVEN€BEBB,€JUDGEó óÌò òGUSSIE€WILLIS€VANN,à àà à)à àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à à(FELONY€MURDER€„€DEATH€PENALTYó ó;Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àINCEST)€Ìó óÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òKENNETH€MILLER€à àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óAttorney€at€Law€à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€191€ÌCleveland,€TN€37364„0191à àà àò òMICHAEL€E.€MOOREó ó€Ì(At€Trial)à àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌÌò òASHLEY€L.€OWNBYà àà àà àKATHY€MORANTEó óÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àDeputy€Attorney€GeneralÌ180€N.€Ocoee€StreetÌP.O.€Box€176à àà àà àà àò òJOHN€P.€CAULEYó óà àà àà àÌCleveland,€TN€37364„0176à àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ(At€Trial€and€On€Appeal)à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌò òBROCK€MEHLERó óà àà àà àò òJERRY€N.€ESTESÌó óAttorney€at€Lawò òà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌ751€Roycroft€Placeà àà àà à203€East€Madison€AvenueÌNashville,€TN€37203à àà àà àP.O.€Box€647Ì(On€Appeal)à àà àà àà àAthens,€TN€37371ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇò òòòÑ  ÑÔ€#°Ôà@ àOPINIONóóó óÔ€#ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àà àIn€this€capital€case,€Gussie€Willis€Vann€appeals€as€of€right€pursuantÏto€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€The€Defendant,€GussieÏWillis€Vann,€and€his€wife,€Bernice€Vann,€were€together€charged€in€a€six€(6)€countÏindictment€with€premeditated€first€degree€murder,€felony€murder€(committed€in€theÏperpetration€of€rape),€two€(2)€counts€of€rape€of€a€child,€and€two€(2)€counts€of€incest.€ÏPrior€to€the€Defendantððs€trial,€upon€motion€of€Bernice€Vann,€the€trial€of€Ms.€VannÏwas€severed€from€that€of€the€Defendant.€€The€Defendantððs€trial€was€held€first,€andÏat€the€close€of€all€proof,€the€State€elected€to€dismiss€the€premeditated€murder€count.€ÏFollowing€jury€deliberation,€the€Defendant€was€convicted€of€felony€murder€and€twoÏ(2)€counts€of€incest.€€Co„defendant€Bernice€Vann€later€pled€guilty€to€accessory€afterÏthe€fact€to€felony€murder,€facilitation€to€commit€aggravated€rape,€and€aggravatedÏchild€abuse€and€neglect€and€received€a€total€sentence€of€twenty„five€(25)€years.€Ìà àà à€Following€the€sentencing€hearing€in€this€case,€the€jury€found€theÏfollowing€three€aggravating€circumstances€to€be€applicable:€(1)€the€murder€wasÏcommitted€against€a€person€less€than€twelve€(12)€years€of€age€and€the€DefendantÏwas€eighteen€(18)€years€of€age€or€older;€(2)€the€Defendant€had€been€previouslyÏconvicted€of€one€(1)€or€more€felonies,€other€than€the€present€charge,€whoseÏstatutory€elements€involved€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person;€and€(3)€the€murderÏwas€especially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€serious€bodilyÍabuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(I)Ï(1),€(2),€and€(5)€(1991).€€The€jury€also€found€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€theÏaggravating€circumstances€outweighed€any€mitigating€circumstances€andÏsentenced€the€Defendant€to€death€by€electrocution.€€The€Defendant€wasÏsentenced€to€three€years€on€each€of€the€incest€convictions.ÌÌà àà àThe€Defendant€raises€the€following€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€theÏDefendantððs€convictions€for€felony€murder€and€incest;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€instruct€the€juryÏon€lesser€included€offenses;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€whether€the€admission€of€evidence€of€other€crimes,Ïwrongs,€and€acts€was€reversible€error;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€whether€instructional€errors€violated€the€DefendantððsÏconstitutional€rights;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€whether€the€trial€court€failed€to€ensure€that€no€prejudiceÏresulted€from€the€extensive€publicity€which€attended€thisÏcase;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€suppressÏevidence€seized€from€a€search€of€the€DefendantððsÏresidence;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(7)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€theÏapplication€of€the€aggravating€circumstance€concerningÏprevious€violent€felonies;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(8)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€theÏapplication€of€the€ð ðheinous,€atrocious€or€cruelðð€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€whether€the€aggravating€circumstance€itselfÏis€unconstitutionally€vague,€whether€the€prosecutionÏengaged€in€misconduct€in€arguing€an€impermissible€basisÍfor€this€aggravating€circumstance,€and€whether€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€its€instruction€concerning€this€aggravatingÏcircumstance;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(9)€whether€the€ð ðreasonable€doubtðð€jury€instructionÏviolated€the€Defendantððs€due€process€rights;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(10)€whether€cumulative€error€requires€reversal€of€theÏconvictions;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(11)€whether€the€Tennessee€death€penalty€statute€isÏunconstitutional.ÌÌÓÓà àà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€all€convictions€and€the€sentenceÏof€death.ÌÌà@ àò ò1.€€òòFACTS€„€GUILT/INNOCENCE€STAGEóóó óÌÌà àà àOn€July€30,€1992,€at€approximately€11:39€p.m.,€paramedics€wereÏsummoned€to€the€Vann€home€by€Bernice€Vann,€the€Defendantððs€wife.€€AccordingÏto€Ms.€Vann,€Necia€Vann,€eight€(8)€year€old€daughter€of€Ms.€Vann€and€theÏDefendant,€had€accidentally€fallen€in€the€bathroom€and€hung€herself.€€Ìà àà àThe€Stateððs€first€witness,€Robert€West,€a€paramedic€supervisor,Ïtestified€at€trial€that€when€he€arrived€at€the€Vann€home,€he€found€Ms.€Vann€cryingÏhysterically€on€the€front€porch€and€the€Defendant€holding€the€victim.€€The€DefendantÏappeared€to€be€conducting€CPR.€€The€Defendant€told€West€that€he€had€gone€toÏthe€store€and€when€he€returned,€the€victim€had€apparently€choked€on€popcorn.€ÏWest€testified€that€the€victim€was€clad€only€in€panties€and€that€when€he€took€theÍpanties€off,€a€gold€chain€fell€out.€€He€stated€that€a€trace€of€blood€appeared€to€beÏcoming€out€of€the€victimððs€vagina€and€that€the€victimððs€anus€opening€appeared€toÏhave€no€muscle€tone€whatsoever.€He€also€observed€red€marks€on€the€victimððsÏneck.Ìà àà àDr.€Robert€Martin,€the€attending€physician€in€the€emergency€room,Ïtestified€that€the€victim€arrived€at€the€hospital€with€no€vital€signs.€€Upon€initialÏexamination,€he€noticed€faint€bruises€on€the€victimððs€neck,€a€slight€tear€at€theÏopening€of€her€vagina,€and€evidence€of€multiple€attempts€of€rectal€penetration.€€TheÏdamage€to€the€anal€area€did€not€appear€to€be€fresh€in€that€it€was€consistent€withÏrepeated€penetration,€occurring€for€at€least€several€months€prior€to€his€examination.€ÏHe€testified€that€in€his€fifteen€(15)€years€practicing€in€obstetrics€and€gynecology,€heÏhad€never€seen€the€female€rectum€of€a€child€in€such€a€condition.€€He€did€not€find€aÏð ðhangmanððs€fractureðð€on€the€neck€of€the€victim,€indicating€that€the€victim€had€beenÏstrangled€rather€than€hung.€€When€Dr.€Martin€informed€the€victimððs€parents€of€herÏdeath,€he€noted€that€Ms.€Vann€was€visibly€upset€but€that€the€DefendantÏappeared€ð ðtotally€nonchalantðð€and€oblivious€to€the€fact€that€his€daughter€was€dead.€ÏPhotographs€of€the€victim€as€she€appeared€in€the€emergency€room€were€admittedÏinto€evidence.€Ìà àà àJerry€Tate,€a€criminal€investigator€with€the€McMinn€County€SheriffððsÏDepartment,€testified€that€he€had€been€dispatched€to€the€emergency€room€of€theÏhospital€to€investigate€the€purported€suicide€of€an€eight€(8)€year€old€girl.€€When€heÏentered€the€emergency€room,€he€immediately€noticed€markings€around€the€victimððsÍneck.€€He€confirmed€the€physicianððs€testimony€concerning€the€abnormal€condition€ofÏthe€victimððs€genitalia.€He€testified€that€he€had€requested€a€rape€kit€be€administered,Ïand€then€he€obtained€permission€from€Ms.€Vann€and€the€Defendant€to€visit€theÏscene€to€investigate€the€victimððs€death.€Upon€arrival€at€the€Vann€residence,€Mr.ÏTate€found€the€home€very€dirty,€unsanitary,€and€crawling€with€vermin.€€He€found€aÏstrip€of€a€sheet€tied€to€a€dresser€in€the€victimððs€bedroom€and€testified€that€heÏwondered€how€a€child€could€tie€the€sheet€around€a€dresser€knob.€€He€found€aÏsheet€with€a€portion€torn€out€of€it€in€a€back€bedroom.€€He€seized€that€sheet,€bedÏsheets€from€the€victimððs€room,€and€the€victimððs€clothes€as€evidence.€€He€testified€thatÏafter€the€Defendant€was€arrested€some€two€weeks€later,€a€search€warrant€wasÏobtained.€€Upon€execution€of€the€warrant,€a€pornographic€videotape,€severalÏpackages€of€condoms,€various€pornographic€magazines,€a€partially€used€jar€ofÏVaseline€jelly,€a€rope€tied€into€a€noose,€and€a€dresser€were€seized.€€NumerousÏphotographs€and€items€taken€from€the€home€were€then€introduced€into€evidence.€ÏOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€Tate€testified€that€blood,€saliva,€pubic€hair,€head€hairÏsamples,€and€a€penile€swab€had€been€taken€from€the€Defendant€on€the€morningÏafter€the€victim€was€brought€to€the€hospital.€€Similar€samples€were€taken€from€Ms.ÏVann€within€the€following€two€week€period.Ìà àà àDr.€William€Foree,€Jr.,€medical€examiner€for€McMinn€County,€testifiedÏthat€he€had€examined€the€victim€at€approximately€5:30€a.m.€on€July€31,€1992.€ÏAlthough€the€victim€was€an€eight€(8)€year€old€child,€she€looked€younger€as€sheÏweighed€only€forty„five€(45)€pounds€and€was€forty€(40)€inches€tall.€€He€observedÍblood€coming€from€both€the€vaginal€and€the€rectal€areas€of€the€victim,€a€laceration€inÏthe€vaginal€area,€and€abrasions€on€her€lower€extremities.€€He€noted€signs€ofÏasphyxiation€due€to€the€angle€of€depression€on€the€victimððs€neck€and€concludedÏthat€the€cause€of€death€was€strangulation.€€Due€to€the€markings€on€the€victimððsÏneck,€he€further€concluded€that€the€strangulation€was€performed€from€behind€theÏvictim.Ìà àà àDr.€Ronald€Toolsie,€a€pathologist€at€Bradley€Medical€Center,€testifiedÏthat€he€had€been€asked€by€Dr.€Foree€to€conduct€the€autopsy€of€the€victim.€€TheÏpostmortem€investigation€revealed€evidence€of€ligature€strangulation€consistent€withÏthe€rope€found€in€the€Vann€home€and€evidence€of€repeated€sexual€abuse,€with€theÏmost€recent€of€that€abuse€probably€occurring€at€around€the€time€of€death.€€HeÏtestified€that€there€was€a€tiny€tear€to€the€lining€of€the€vagina€and€fresh€bruisingÏappeared€on€the€inside€of€the€vaginal€wall,€indicative€of€injuries€inflicted€shortly€priorÏto€the€victimððs€death.€€He€described€the€victimððs€anus€as€being€dilated€three€or€fourÏtimes€wider€than€normal€and€stated€that€the€victim€had€suffered€repeated€analÏpenetration€over€some€period€in€the€past.€€It€was€his€opinion€that€marked€lack€ofÏanal€muscle€tone€would€have€made€rectal€penetration€possible€without€leaving€anyÏappreciable€injury.€€On€cross€examination€Dr.€Toolsie€noted€that€the€victimððs€hymenÏwas€intact.€€On€redirect,€however,€he€stated€that€it€was€possible€that€penetrationÏhad€taken€place,€although€ð ðprobably€not€with€a€penis.ððÌà àà àT.B.I.€Agent€Richard€Brogan€testified€that€he€assisted€in€theÏinvestigation€of€the€victimððs€death€and€had€taken€a€statement€from€the€Defendant€inÍthe€early€morning€hours€of€July€31,€1992.€€The€Defendantððs€statement€wasÏintroduced€into€evidence.€Ìà àà àEssentially,€the€Defendant€told€Brogan€that€he€had€arrived€home€atÏapproximately€4:30€p.m.€on€July€30€and€watched€movies€with€his€wife€andÏchildren.€€The€victim€had€gone€to€her€bedroom€and€he€had€gone€to€ð ðMr.€Zip,ðð€a€localÏconvenience€store,€where€he€bought€a€pack€of€Monarch€cigarettes€and€two€piecesÏof€ð ðChicoðð€candy€sticks.€€Upon€returning€home,€he€undressed€to€take€a€showerÏwhen€he€heard€Ms.€Vann€scream€for€him€to€come€into€the€other€room.€€He€then€ranÏinto€the€hall€to€find€Ms.€Vann€carrying€the€victim.€€After€taking€the€victim€into€his€arms,Ïit€appeared€to€him€that€she€was€not€breathing.€€He€instructed€his€wife€to€call€911€atÏa€neighborððs€home,€and€he€then€began€CPR.€€The€Defendant€stated€that€whenÏMs.€Vann€returned€with€their€neighbor,€she€got€a€blanket€to€cover€the€Defendant€asÏhe€had€been€called€out€of€the€bathroom€and€had€not€had€time€to€put€on€his€clothes.€ÏWhen€the€paramedics€arrived,€the€Defendant€rode€with€them€in€the€front€of€theÏambulance,€and€when€he€reached€the€hospital€he€asked€Ms.€Vann€whatÏhappened.€€According€to€the€Defendant,€she€told€him€that€she€had€found€the€victimÏsitting€beside€her€dresser€with€a€rope€around€her€neck.€€However,€he€told€hospitalÏpersonnel€that€the€victim€was€eating€popcorn€and€possibly€choked.€€He€thenÏstated€that€the€victim€had€never€given€him€any€indication€that€she€wanted€to€hangÏherself.€€He€volunteered€information€that€she€often€spent€the€night€with€her€UncleÏDan,€Linda€Rogers,€and€a€male€friend€of€his,€and€subsequently€admitted€that€heÏhad€been€having€an€affair€with€Linda€Rogers.Ìà àà àRuby€Crittenden,€clerk€at€the€ð ðMr.€Zipðð€convenience€store€where€theÏDefendant€purportedly€purchased€cigarettes€and€candy€on€the€night€of€the€murder,€Ïtestified€that€she€did€not€remember€seeing€the€Defendant€in€the€store€that€evening.€ÏCash€register€tapes€from€the€time€period€in€which€the€Defendant€stated€that€he€hadÏpurchased€the€items€that€evening€were€introduced€into€evidence€to€show€thatÏð ðChicoðð€candy€sticks€and€cigarettes€had€not€been€purchased.Ìà àà àLinda€Littlejohns,€a€T.B.I.€crime€lab€expert€in€the€trace€evidence€section,Ïtestified€that€she€had€conducted€a€physical€comparison€of€the€torn€bed€sheet€foundÏin€the€victimððs€bedroom€with€the€remainder€of€the€sheet€found€in€the€back€bedroom.€ÏShe€analyzed€them€to€see€if€they€were€the€same€color€and€if€the€fracture€line€of€theÏfrayed€edges€matched.€€Upon€comparison,€the€sheet€and€piece€of€sheet€hadÏenough€match€characteristics€to€conclude€that€they€had€at€one€time€been€joined.€ÏHowever,€she€testified€that€she€found€no€trace€evidence€on€any€of€the€sheet€piecesÏor€on€the€anal€swab€taken€from€the€victim€which€she€could€connect€to€the€jar€ofÏVaseline€jelly€or€unopened€condoms€found€in€the€Vann€residence.Ìà àà àRaymond€Depriest,€a€T.B.I.€expert€in€serology,€testified€that€he€hadÏanalyzed€a€pair€of€jeans€and€a€t„shirt€believed€to€have€been€worn€by€the€victim€onÏthe€day€of€the€murder,€as€well€as€a€hairbrush,€a€blue€and€white€jumper,€a€penileÏswab,€the€victimððs€underwear,€an€anal€swab€taken€from€the€victim,€two€packagesÏof€condoms€taken€from€the€Vann€residence,€and€sheets€from€the€victimððs€bed.€€WithÏthe€exception€of€the€sheets€taken€from€the€victimððs€bed,€the€analysis€provedÏnegative€for€the€presence€of€sperm,€saliva,€or€blood.€€He€further€determined€that€theÍsemen€stains€found€on€the€sheets€taken€from€the€victimððs€bed€were€consistent€withÏthe€blood,€saliva,€and€semen€samples€taken€from€the€Defendant.Ìà àà àChester€Blythe,€an€expert€in€hair€and€fiber€comparisons€from€the€F.B.I.ÏForensic€Science€Training€Unit,€testified€that€he€had€compared€the€hair€samplesÏtaken€from€the€victim€and€Ms.€Vann€and€concluded€that€hair€debris€found€on€theÏrope€believed€to€have€been€used€to€strangle€the€victim€matched€that€of€Ms.€VannÏand€the€victim.€€However,€the€envelope€labeled€as€containing€the€Defendantððs€hairÏsamples€had€been€empty,€and€consequently€no€comparison€was€conducted.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€also€conducted€an€examination€on€the€torn€piece€of€sheet€takenÏfrom€the€Vann€residence€and€found€hairs€that€were€microscopically€similar€to€theÏhairs€of€the€victim.€€Ñ7€6(XXdìXXdì7ÑSome€of€the€hairs€had€been€forcibly€removed.€€He€also€found€aÏnumber€of€hairs€on€the€bed€sheet€that€were€microscopically€unlike€the€hair€samplesÏtaken€from€the€victim€or€her€mother,€and€he€testified€that€upon€examination€heÏconcluded€that€they€probably€came€from€an€adult.€€€Ìà àà àJohn€Mertens,€an€F.B.I.€agent€specializing€in€DNA€analysis,€testifiedÏthat€the€DNA€profiles€of€the€semen€stains€found€on€the€victimððs€bed€sheet€matchedÏthe€DNA€profile€of€the€Defendant€and€the€odds€of€finding€another€individual€whoseÏDNA€profile€would€match€those€found€on€the€sheet€were€one€in€ten€thousand.€€TheÏState€then€rested€its€case,€and€the€defense€moved€for€a€verdict€of€acquittal€on€allÏcounts.€€The€motion€was€denied.Ìà àà àJason€Vincent€Reid,€a€law€clerk€employed€by€Defendantððs€counsel,Ïwas€the€first€witness€called€by€the€defense.€€He€testified€that€earlier€that€morning€heÍpurchased€from€the€ð ðMr.€Zipðð€convenience€store€located€in€Riceville€two€(2)€piecesÏof€candy€called€ð ðChicoðð€candy€and€a€package€of€Monarch€cigarettes,€allegedly€theÏsame€items€the€Defendant€purchased€on€the€evening€of€the€murder.€€He€submittedÏreceipts€totaling€thirty„two€(32)€cents€for€the€candy€and€one€dollar€and€fifty€centsÏ($1.50)€for€the€cigarettes.€€On€cross€examination,€Mr.€Reid€admitted€that€he€did€notÏknow€what€the€price€of€these€items€would€have€been€in€1992.€Ìà àà àTroy€Lee€Jones,€a€neighbor€of€the€Defendant,€testified€that€he€hadÏassisted€Ms.€Vann€in€calling€911€on€the€night€of€the€murder.€€He€stated€that€in€hisÏopinion,€when€he€arrived€at€the€Vann€residence,€the€Defendant€was€doingÏeverything€he€could€to€save€the€victimððs€life.€€Ms.€Vann€told€him€that€the€victim€hadÏbeen€eating€popcorn€and€might€have€choked.€€On€cross€examination€he€statedÏthat€Ms.€Vann€had€been€hysterical€and€had€said€something€about€the€victimÏhanging€herself.Ìà àà àSam€Vann,€Jr.,€brother€of€the€Defendant,€testified€that€he€often€visitedÏthe€Defendant€in€the€summer€of€1992€and€had€observed€the€Defendant€and€Ms.ÏVann€sleeping€on€the€couch€with€only€bed€sheets€covering€them.€€The€defenseÏthen€rested.Ìà àà àOn€rebuttal,€Jerry€Witt,€a€current€employee€of€the€ð ðMr.€Zipðð€convenienceÏstore€who€had€also€worked€for€the€store€in€1992,€testified€that€the€price€of€ð ðChicoððÏcandy€sticks€had€been€ten€(10)€cents€in€1992,€but€in€1993€the€price€was€raised€toÏfifteen€(15)€cents.€€Ìà àà àA€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€was€renewed€and€denied,€and€theÏState€chose€to€dismiss€its€premeditated€murder€count€and€proceed€on€the€felonyÏmurder€count.€€The€jury€was€instructed,€€deliberated€for€approximately€one€hour,€andÏfound€the€Defendant€guilty€of€felony€murder,€one€count€of€incest€by€vaginalÏpenetration,€and€one€count€of€incest€by€anal€penetration.ÌÇÌà@ àò òII.€€òòFACTS€„€SENTENCING€PHASEÌÌà àà àó óóóThe€State€relied€upon€four€aggravating€circumstances€in€requesting€theÏdeath€penalty.€€The€trial€court€directed€a€judgment€against€application€of€theÏaggravating€circumstance€involving€a€crime€which€was€committed€to€avoid€arrest.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(I)(6).€€The€State€produced€the€birth€certificates€ofÏboth€the€Defendant€and€the€victim€to€prove€that€the€murder€was€committed€againstÏa€person€less€than€twelve€(12)€years€of€age€by€a€person€eighteen€(18)€years€ofÏage€or€older,€thereby€supporting€the€applicability€of€the€aggravating€circumstanceÏconcerning€the€ages€of€the€victim€and€the€Defendant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(I)(1).Ìà àà àThe€State€then€introduced€copies€of€two€prior€judgments€datedÏJanuary€6,€1994.€€These€judgments€reflected€that€the€Defendant€was€convicted€ofÏtwo€counts€of€aggravated€rape€in€support€of€the€application€of€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance€concerning€prior€violent€felonies.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(I)(2).€€The€State€relied€on€medical€testimony€from€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€toÏsupport€the€applicability€of€the€ð ðheinous,€atrocious€or€cruelðð€aggravatingÏcircumstance.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(I)(5).Ìà àà àIn€his€own€defense€the€Defendant€testified€that€he€came€from€a€poorÏbut€loving€family,€and€made€a€living€by€farming,€driving€a€truck,€and€working€in€aÏcarpet€mill.€€He€testified€that€he€had€been€severely€injured€in€an€attempted€truckÍhijacking€in€1989,€and€had€since€suffered€from€seizures€and€a€dislocated€disk€in€hisÏneck.€€€He€had€a€nervous€breakdown€in€1980€due€to€a€dependance€on€painÏmedication€prescribed€for€a€back€injury.€€He€testified€that€he€married€Ms.€Vann€inÏ1982,€but€after€the€birth€of€their€first€child€she€had€ð ðgone€to€pieces.ðð€€He€stated€thatÏhe€had€been€the€primary€caretaker€of€the€victim€and€her€three€(3)€siblings.€€€He€thenÏdeclared€his€innocence.Ìà àà àEston€Allen€Gene€Vann,€brother€of€the€Defendant,€testified€that€theÏDefendant€and€his€father€had€never€gotten€along€because€the€Defendant€was€ð ðnotÏwanted,ðð€and€the€Defendantððs€father€had€often€beaten€him€with€a€broom€handle.€ÏThe€Defendantððs€children€had€appeared€to€love€him,€especially€the€victim,€and€theÏDefendant€had€been€the€primary€caretaker€of€the€children.Ìà àà àLisa€Marie€McMahan,€sister€of€the€Defendant,€testified€that€theÏDefendant€had€always€€helped€provide€for€his€brothers€and€sisters.€€She€statedÏthat€she€believed€her€brother€was€definitely€not€guilty.€€The€defense€then€introduced,Ïby€stipulation,€medical€records€from€Moccasin€Bend€concerning€the€DefendantððsÏtreatment€for€depression€and€suicidal€tendencies.Ìà àà àClosing€arguments€were€presented,€and€the€jury€was€instructed.€€TheÏjury€found€the€three€aggravating€circumstances€to€be€applicable,€found€that€theÏaggravating€circumstances€outweighed€the€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt,€and€concluded€that€the€punishment€should€be€death.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€òòANALYSISóóó óÌÌò òÓÓ1.€€WHETHER€THE€EVIDENCE€WAS€SUFFICIENT€TO€SUSTAIN€THEÏDEFENDANTððS€CONVICTIONS€FOR€FELONY€MURDER€AND€TWOÏCOUNTS€OF€INCEST.ÌÌà àà àó óÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€sustainÏthe€Defendantððs€convictions€for€felony€murder€and€incest.€€First,€the€DefendantÏargues€that€the€evidence€failed€to€prove€he€was€the€perpetrator€of€the€crime.€€HeÏstates€that€the€proof€was€entirely€circumstantial€and€the€circumstances€were€not€soÏstrong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€every€other€reasonable€hypothesis€by€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€He€asserts€that€the€State€failed€to€exclude€the€reasonableÏhypothesis€that€Ms.€Vann€committed€the€murder.€€Second,€he€contends€that€theÏevidence€failed€to€prove€that€the€killing€was€committed€in€furtherance€of€a€rape.Ìà àà àWhen€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€questioned€on€appeal,€theÏstandard€of€review€is€ð ðwhether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307,€319€(1979).€€This€means€that€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€it.€ÏòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Likewise,€the€determinationÏof€the€weight€and€credibility€of€the€testimony€of€€witnesses€and€reconciliation€ofÏconflicts€in€that€testimony€are€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€trier€of€fact,€in€this€case,Ïthe€jury.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575ÍS.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€Further,€the€standard€for€appellateÏreview€is€the€same€whether€the€conviction€is€based€upon€direct€or€circumstantialÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€634€S.W.2d€670,€672€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).Ìà àà àAn€offense€may€be€proven€by€circumstantial€evidence€alone.€€òòPrice€v.ÏStateóó,€589€S.W.2d€929,€931€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€However,€where€aÏconviction€is€based€upon€entirely€circumstantial€evidence,€as€the€State€concedes€inÏthis€case,€the€jury€must€find€that€the€proof€is€not€only€consistent€with€the€guilt€of€theÏaccused€but€inconsistent€with€his€innocence.€€There€must€be€an€evidentiary€basisÏupon€which€the€jury€can€exclude€every€other€reasonable€theory€or€hypothesesÏexcept€that€of€guilt.€€òòPruitt€v.€Stateóó,€3€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€256,€460€S.W.2d€385,€390Ï(1970).€€Ìà àà àIn€this€case,€the€evidence€against€the€Defendant€began€with€his€ownÏstatements.€€His€account€of€his€whereabouts€on€the€evening€of€the€victimððs€deathÏwas€directly€contradicted€by€the€testimony€of€the€store€clerk€and€the€cash€registerÏreceipts€showing€that€the€items€he€claimed€to€purchase€had€not€been€purchased.€ÏHe€also€made€odd€comments,€unrelated€to€the€event,€concerning€other€individualsÏwhen€he€stated€that€he€never€suspected€that€his€daughter€would€commit€suicideÏbut€that€she€had€on€a€few€occasions€spent€the€night€with€her€Uncle€Dan,€LindaÏRogers,€and€a€male€friend€of€his.€He€also€admitted€to€having€an€affair€with€LindaÏRogers.Ìà àà àThe€jury€could€certainly€have€viewed€his€statements€as€self„servingÏand€an€attempt€to€deflect€suspicion.€€He€was€seemingly€offering€other€suspectsÍwho€could€have€raped€his€daughter€and€some€explanation€for€why€he€would€haveÏno€sexual€motive€to€rape€her.€€Ìà àà àThe€behavior€of€the€Defendant€before€and€after€being€told€of€theÏvictimððs€death€also€supported€the€Stateððs€theory.€€The€Defendant€told€theÏparamedic€at€the€scene€that€the€victim€had€apparently€choked€on€popcorn.€ÏHowever,€the€autopsy€revealed€that€no€popcorn€was€ingested€by€the€victim.€€Dr.ÏMartin,€the€emergency€room€physician,€described€the€Defendant€as€ð ðreally€coolððÏand€ð ðtotally€oblivious€to€the€fact€that€he€was€just€informed€that€his€daughter€wasÏdead.ððÌà àà àThe€medical€evidence€also€pointed€to€the€Defendant€as€theÏperpetrator.€€Dr.€Toolsie,€the€pathologist€who€performed€the€autopsy€on€the€victim,Ïtestified€that€the€tearing€of€the€muscle€tissue€in€the€victimððs€neck€could€only€haveÏresulted€from€the€exertion€of€great€force€upon€the€victim.€€When€asked€if€it€wouldÏhave€been€possible€for€a€woman€to€exert€such€force,€his€response€was€that€ð ð[i]tÏwould€depend€on€how€athletic€she€is.ðð€Ìà àà àAlthough€Chester€Blythe,€the€F.B.I.€expert€in€hair€and€fiberÏcomparisons,€testified€that€hair€found€on€the€rope€believed€to€have€been€used€toÏstrangle€the€victim€matched€those€of€Ms.€Vann€and€the€victim,€hair€samples€takenÏfrom€the€Defendant€were€apparently€lost.€€Consequently,€no€comparison€wasÏconducted.Ìà àà àIn€essence€Defendantððs€argument€is€that€either€Bernice€Vann€orÏDefendant€killed€Necia€Vann€in€the€perpetration€of€rape,€to€the€mutual€exclusion€ofÍeach€other.€€He€argues€that€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€indicates€BerniceÏVann€committed€the€homicide.€€Ìà àà àWith€the€jury€being€entitled€to€reject€Defendantððs€alibi€in€his€statementÏdue€to€contradictory€testimony€contained€in€this€record,€the€proof€overwhelminglyÏshows€that€Defendant€and€his€wife€were€the€only€adults€present€in€the€homeÏwhen€Necia€Vann€died.€€Furthermore,€the€jury€was€entitled€to€infer€from€the€evidenceÏthat€an€adult€male€exerted€the€excessive€force€necessary€to€do€the€damageÏresulting€from€the€ligature€strangulation.€€The€proof€indicates€that€it€was€DefendantððsÏsperm€on€the€victimððs€bed€sheet.€€It€was€the€Defendant€who€was€essentially€nudeÏwith€the€victim€when€a€neighbor€and€paramedics€arrived.€€The€jury,€as€the€trier€ofÏfact,€was€entitled€to€reject€certain€evidence€brought€out€through€Defendantððs€cross„examination€and€direct€examination€which€attempted€to€give€an€innocentÏexplanation€of€the€incriminating€evidence€against€him.Ìà àà àIn€òòPruitt€v.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó,€this€Court€quoted€from€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€203ÏTenn.€440,€313€S.W.2d€451€(1958),€wherein€it€held,ÌÓÓÌà0 àà àà8 àWeight€of€circumstantial€evidence€is€a€question€for€the€jury€to€determine.€€TheÏinferences€to€be€drawn€from€such€evidence,€and€the€extent€to€which€theÏcircumstances€are€consistent€with€guilt€and€inconsistent€with€innocence€areÏquestions€primarily€for€the€jury.ÌÌòòÓÓPruittóó€at€391.ÌÌà àà àThe€most€damaging€evidence€against€the€Defendant€was€perhapsÏthe€medical€testimony€related€to€the€sexual€assault€upon€the€victim.€€He€assertsÍthat€the€State€failed€to€prove€that€the€murder€was€committed€during€the€commissionÏof€rape.€€However,€much€of€the€medical€and€forensic€testimony€supports€the€StateððsÏtheory.€€à àà àThe€medical€examiner,€the€paramedic€who€arrived€at€the€scene,Ïand€the€criminal€investigator€who€was€dispatched€to€the€emergency€room€eachÏtestified€that€they€observed€blood€coming€from€the€victimððs€genital€area.€€Dr.€Toolsie,Ïthe€medical€examiner€who€performed€the€autopsy€of€the€victim,€testified€that€thereÏwas€evidence€of€repeated€sexual€abuse,€and€that€there€was€strong€evidence€thatÏthe€most€recent€of€the€abuse€ð ðprobably€occurred€at€about€the€time€of€death.ðð€€ThereÏwas€a€tear€to€the€lining€of€the€vagina,€fresh€bruising€was€apparent€on€the€inside€ofÏthe€vaginal€wall,€and€the€marked€lack€of€muscle€tone€in€the€anal€area€made€rectalÏpenetration€possible€without€leaving€any€appreciable€injury.€€Dr.€Toolsie€alsoÏtestified€that€the€magnitude€of€the€injury,€including€the€tearing€of€muscles,€withÏassociated€bleeding€underlying€the€rope€mark€on€the€victimððs€neck,€indicated€thatÏsubstantial€pressure€must€have€been€applied€to€the€ligature.€€He€testified€that€theÏmagnitude€of€the€force€required€to€produce€the€injury€could€not€have€been€inflicted€byÏa€child€and€only€by€a€female€who€was€quite€athletic.€Ìà àà àPhysical€evidence€also€pointed€to€the€Defendant€as€the€perpetrator€ofÏthe€sex€offenses.€€Except€for€a€blanket€wrapped€around€him,€the€Defendant€wasÏnude€when€paramedics€arrived€at€his€house€on€the€night€of€the€childððs€death.€ÏSemen€stains€found€on€the€victimððs€bed€sheets€matched€those€of€the€Defendant,Ïand€an€F.B.I.€Agent€specializing€in€DNA€analysis€testified€that€the€odds€of€findingÍanother€individual€whose€DNA€profile€would€match€those€found€on€the€sheet€wereÏone€in€ten€thousand.€€Ìà àà àIn€summary,€while€the€evidence€of€the€elements€of€the€crimes€wasÏcircumstantial,€the€conduct€of€the€Defendant,€the€medical€evidence,€and€the€physicalÏevidence€were€proof€from€which€the€jury€could€have€concluded€that€the€DefendantÏstrangled€the€victim€during€the€perpetration€of€rape.€€Also,€proof€of€anal€and€vaginalÏpenetration€was€sufficient€to€support€the€two€convictions€of€incest.€€Accordingly,€thisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓÓ2.€€WHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT€ERRED€BY€FAILING€TO€INSTRUCTÏTHE€JURY€ON€LESSER€INCLUDED€OFFENSES.ó ó€ÌÓÓÌà àà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€the€juryÏon€any€degree€of€homicide€other€than€first€degree€felony€murder€constitutedÏreversible€error.€Specifically,€he€asserts€that€the€trial€court€had€a€ð ðstatutory€andÏconstitutional€dutyðð€to€charge€the€lesser€included€offenses€of€criminally€negligentÏhomicide€and€facilitation€of€a€felony.€€In€response,€the€State€argues€the€proof€did€notÏestablish€that€any€lesser€included€or€lesser€grade€offenses€should€be€charged.Ìà àà àPertinent€facts€to€this€issue€are€that€the€Defendant€was€initially€indictedÏon€one€count€of€premeditated€murder€and€one€count€of€felony€murder,€among€otherÏoffenses.€€At€the€close€of€all€proof,€the€State€elected€to€dismiss€the€premeditatedÏmurder€count€and€proceed€only€on€the€felony€murder€count.€€The€trial€court€thenÏinstructed€the€jury€solely€on€first€degree€felony€murder.€€Ìà àà àThis€court€has€concluded€that€the€only€lesser€included€offenses€ofÏfelony€murder€are€reckless€homicide€and€criminally€negligent€homicide.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€œv.Ì›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌÌGilliamóó,›€901€S.W.2d€385,€391€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Johnnie€LamontÏDaltonóó,€No.€01C01„9408„CR„00291,€Davidson€Co.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,Ïfiled€July€11,€1995)(No€Rule€11€application€filed).€€However,€as€conceded€byÏDefendant,€he€could€not€be€convicted€of€reckless€homicide€because€the€statuteÏdefining€this€offense€did€not€become€effective€until€after€the€commission€of€the€instantÏoffense.€€Ìà àà àA€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€jury€instruction€on€lesser€grades€or€classesÏof€the€charged€offense€as€long€as€these€lesser€grades€or€classes€of€offense€areÏsupported€by€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€310€(Tenn.€1996).€ÏAccording€to€òòTrustyóó,€lesser€grades€or€classes€of€any€offense€are€established€byÏstatutory€scheme.€€òòTrustyóó€at€310„311.€€There€was€absolutely€no€proof€in€the€caseÏòòsub€judiceóó€that€the€offense€was€committed€in€a€state€of€passion€produced€byÏadequate€provocation,€to€justify€a€jury€instruction€on€voluntary€manslaughter.€ÍFurthermore,€it€is€impossible€to€œreconcile€ligature›€strangulation€in€this€particular€caseÏwith€any€theory€of€criminal€negligence.€€òòSee€State€v.€Daniel€L.€Crowóó,€No.€œ01C01„9110„CC„00304,›€Humphreys€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€filed€July€8,Ï1993)€(òòperm.€app.€deniedóó).€€Therefore€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€declining€to€give€aÏjury€instruction€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€criminally€negligent€homicide.€€TheÏevidence€in€the€record€was€that€the€killing€was€committed€during€the€perpetration€ofÏrape,€or€that€it€was€an€accidental€choking€from€eating€popcorn,€or€that€the€victimÏhad€committed€suicide.€€An€additional€theory€of€Defendant€was€that€the€deathÏoccurred€while€he€was€away€from€the€home€at€the€convenience€store.€€TheÏargument€by€Defendant€that€the€lesser€grade€or€included€offenses€of€secondÏdegree€murder€and€facilitation€of€a€felony€were€supported€by€the€proof€is€mereÏconjecture.Ìà àà àWhere€the€evidence€clearly€shows€that€the€Defendant€was€guilty€ofÏthe€greater€offense€and€is€devoid€of€any€evidence€permitting€an€inference€of€guilt€ofÏa€œÌÌlesser›€included€offense€or€lesser€grade€offense,€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€charge€on€aÏlesser€offense€is€not€error.€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€311€(Tenn.€1996);ÏòòState€v.€Kingóó,€718€S.W.2d€241,€245€(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589,Ï593€(Tenn.€1990),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€112€L.Ed.€861€(1991)Ìà àà àThe€record€in€this€case€is€devoid€of€any€evidence€to€support€a€juryÏcharge€on€the€offenses€of€criminally€negligent€homicide,€facilitation€of€a€felony,€or€anyÍother€lesser€grades€of€felony€murder.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„212€and€39„11„403€(1991).€€Failure€of€the€trial€court€toÔ€#ôÔ€Ô€#ŠÔinstruct€the€jury€on€the€lesser€offensesÏwas€not€error.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓÓ3.€€WHETHER€THE€ADMISSION€OF€EVIDENCE€OF€OTHER€CRIMES,ÏWRONGS,€AND€ACTS€WAS€REVERSIBLE€ERROR.ó óÌÓÓÌà àà àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€a€photograph€depicting€the€victimððsÏexterior€vaginal€and€anal€injuries€and€evidence€concerning€a€pornographic€video,Ïseveral€pornographic€magazines,€condoms€found€in€the€dresser€in€the€DefendantððsÏbedroom,€and€a€half„empty€jar€of€vaseline€were€inadmissible€pursuant€to€RuleÏ404(a)€and€(b),€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€He€argues€that€even€if€admissible,Ïthe€probative€value€of€the€evidence€was€ð ðsubstantially€outweighedðð€by€itsÏprejudicial€effect€pursuant€to€the€standard€set€forth€in€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2dÏ947,€951€(Tenn.€1978).Ìà àà àDuring€the€emergency€room€physicianððs€testimony€a€photograph€of€theÏvictimððs€rectum€and€vaginal€area€was€introduced€into€evidence.€€Although€Dr.ÏMartin,€the€emergency€room€physician,€testified€that€the€damage€to€the€anal€areaÏwas€not€fresh€in€that€it€was€consistent€with€abuse€that€had€been€ongoing€forÏseveral€months,€the€pathologist€who€performed€the€autopsy,€Dr.€Toolsie,€testifiedÏthat€the€postmortem€investigation€revealed€evidence€of€repeated€sexual€abuse,€theÏmost€recent€of€which€probably€occurred€around€the€time€of€death.€€Dr.€Toolsie€furtherÏtestified€that€there€had€been€a€tear€to€the€lining€of€the€vagina€and€that€fresh€bruisingÍappeared€on€the€lining€of€the€vaginal€wall.€€Dr.€Toolsie€and€Dr.€Foree,€the€medicalÏexaminer€for€McMinn€County,€also€testified€that€they€observed€blood€coming€fromÏboth€the€vaginal€and€rectal€areas€of€the€victim€when€they€conducted€theirÏexaminations.€Ìà àà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€concerning€past€incidentsÏof€sexual€abuse€was€evidence€of€other€crimes€that€was€inadmissible€pursuant€toÏRule€404(b),€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€The€rule,€in€pertinent€part,€providesÏthat:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àEvidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€notÏadmissible€to€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€toÏshow€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€trait.€€It€may,Ïhowever,€be€admissible€for€other€œpurposes.Ì›ÌÌÓÓà àà àTo€be€admissible,€a€photograph€must€be€relevant€to€some€issue€atÏtrial,€and€its€prejudicial€effect€must€not€outweigh€its€probative€value.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,Ï564€S.W.2d€at€951.€€The€discretion€of€a€trial€judge€in€allowing€the€admission€of€aÏphotograph€into€evidence€will€not€be€overturned€absent€a€clear€showing€of€anÏabuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€542€(Tenn.€1994);ÏòòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€226€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1995)(citations€omitted).Ìà àà àWe€conclude€that€in€this€case€it€was€not€error€to€admit€the€photographÏof€the€victimððs€vaginal€and€rectal€area.€€Although€somewhat€graphic,€theÏphotograph€was€relevant€to€establish€the€nature€of€the€injury€and€to€corroborate€theÏpathologistððs€testimony€concerning€how€the€victim€could€have€been€penetratedÍanally€at€the€time€of€the€murder€without€appreciable€mark€or€injury.€€This€evidenceÏwas€relevant€in€proving€that€the€killing€was€committed€in€furtherance€of€rape.€€Ìà àà àEqually€without€merit€is€the€Defendantððs€assertion€that€the€testimony€ofÏOfficer€Tate€concerning€pornographic€materials,€vaseline,€and€condoms€seized€fromÏthe€Defendantððs€home€was€inadmissible€evidence€of€prior€bad€acts.€€At€trial,€OfficerÏTate€testified€that€two€(2)€weeks€after€the€murder€he€and€Investigator€Alley€obtainedÏa€search€warrant€for€the€Defendantððs€residence.€€Upon€execution€of€the€warrant,ÏOfficer€Tate€stated€that€he€found€a€pornographic€video€entitled€ð ðSatin€Finish,ðð€a€half„empty€jar€of€vaseline,€a€rope,€several€pornographic€magazines,€and€severalÏunused€condoms€in€the€home.€€The€Defendant€then€moved€for€a€mistrial€basedÏupon€the€fact€that€the€trial€court€had€reserved€ruling€on€the€admissibility€of€the€tapeÏand€pictures€from€the€tape€and€the€State€had€nonetheless€pursued€this€line€ofÏquestioning.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion.€Ìà àà àThe€Defendant€asserts€that€the€testimony€of€Officer€Tate€prejudiced€theÏDefendant€by€portraying€him€as€a€sexual€deviant.€€However,€a€review€of€the€recordÏindicates€that€the€State€did€not€elicit€the€testimony€of€Officer€Tate€in€regard€to€theÏcontents€of€the€videotape€and€the€magazines€but€rather€attempted€to€cut€it€off.€ÏThough€we€do€not€agree€with€the€State€that€the€evidence€was€clearly€admissibleÏand€was€ð ðhardly€the€sort€to€inflame€the€jury,ðð€we€conclude€that€any€error€in€thisÏinstance€was€harmless.€€The€tape€and€magazines€were€not€presented€to€the€jury,Ïand€the€investigator€was€not€allowed€to€go€into€detail€in€his€testimony€concerningÍthe€pornographic€materials.€€Accordingly,€the€error€does€not€ð ðaffirmatively€appear€toÏhave€affected€the€result€of€the€trial€on€the€merits.ðð€€Rule€52(a),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€ÌœÇò ò›ÓÓ4.€€WHETHER€INSTRUCTIONAL€ERRORS€VIOLATED€THEÏDEFENDANTððS€CONSTITUTIONAL€RIGHTSó ó.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€(a)€refusing€toÏinstruct€the€jury€that€the€Stateððs€case€was€entirely€circumstantial;€(b)€instructing€theÏjury€that€it€could€convict€the€Defendant€of€murder€if€ð ðhis€act€or€failure€toÏact...unlawfully€contributed€to€the€death€of€the€deceased;ðð€(c)€instructing€the€jury€thatÏð ðthe€burden€of€proceeding€by€offer€of€proof€is€upon€the€Defendant€to€show€thatÏdeath€resulted€from€some€other€cause€not€attributable€to€the€Defendant;ðð€and€(d)Ïinstructing€the€jury€that€it€could€convict€the€Defendant€of€rape,€and€hence,€of€felonyÏmurder,€based€on€evidence€of€anal€penetration€of€the€deceased.€€We€find€theseÏcomplaints€to€be€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓÓà à(A)€€REFUSING€TO€INSTRUCT€THE€JURY€THAT€THE€STATEððSÏCASE€WASÌœà àENTIRELY›€œCIRCUMSTANTIAL.›ÌÌÓÓà àó óà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial,€the€DefendantÏrequested€the€trial€court€to€instruct€the€jury€that€there€had€been€no€direct€evidenceÏpresented€linking€the€Defendant€to€the€charged€offenses.€€The€trial€court€refusedÏsuch€request€and€instead€gave€the€following€instruction:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àThe€guilt€of€the€Defendant€as€well€as€any€factÏrequired€to€be€proved€may€be€established€by€directÏevidence,€by€circumstantial€evidence,€or€by€bothÏcombined.Ìà8 àà8 àà àDirect€evidence€is€defined€as€evidence€whichÏproves€the€existence€of€the€fact€in€issue€without€inferenceÏor€presumption.€€Direct€evidence€may€consist€of€testimonyÍof€a€person€who€has€perceived€by€the€means€of€hisÏsenses€the€existence€of€a€fact,€sought€to€be€proved€orÏdisproved.Ìà8 àà8 àà àCircumstantial€evidence€consists€of€proof€ofÏcollateral€facts€and€circumstances€which€do€not€directlyÏprove€the€fact€in€issue€but€from€which€that€fact€may€beÏlogically€inferred.Ìà8 àà8 àà àWhen€the€evidence€is€made€up€of€entirelyÏcircumstantial€evidence,€then€before€you€would€be€justifiedÏin€finding€the€Defendant€guilty,€you€must€find€that€all€theÏessential€facts€are€consistent€with€the€hypothesis€of€guilt,Ïas€that€is€to€be€compared€with€all€the€facts€proved;€theÏfacts€must€exclude€every€other€reasonable€hypothesesÏexcept€that€of€guilt;€and€the€facts€must€establish€such€aÏcertainty€of€guilt€of€the€Defendant€as€to€convince€the€mindÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€Defendant€is€theÏone€who€committed€the€offense.€€It€is€not€necessary€thatÏeach€particular€fact€should€be€proved€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€if€enough€facts€are€proved€to€satisfyÏthe€jury€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€of€all€the€factsÏnecessary€to€constitute€the€crime€charged.€€Before€aÏverdict€of€guilty€is€justified,€the€circumstances,€takenÏtogether,€must€be€of€a€conclusive€nature€and€tendency,Ïleading€on€the€whole€to€a€satisfactory€conclusion€andÏproducing€in€effect€a€moral€certainty€that€the€Defendant,Ïand€no€one€else,€committed€the€offense.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThese€instructions€were€taken€from€the€Tennessee€€Criminal€PatternÏJury€Instructions,€37.06,€and€are€accurate€statements€of€the€law.€€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,Ï203€Tenn.€440,€313€S.W.2d€451,€456„57€(1958).€€Where€the€trial€courtððs€instructionsÏon€a€matter€are€proper,€its€denial€of€a€special€request€is€not€error.€€òòShell€v.€Stateóó,Ï584€S.W.2d€231,€235€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððsÏthorough€instruction€of€the€law€was€sufficient€to€counter€the€Defendantððs€request€forÏa€specific€instruction€that€the€Stateððs€case€was€based€entirely€upon€circumstantialÏevidence.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓÓà à(B)€€THE€ð ðPROXIMATE€CAUSEðð€INSTRUCTIONÌÌÓÓà àà àó óThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€as€toÏproximate€cause€relieved€the€prosecution€of€its€burden€of€proving€criminal€intent€andÏdeprived€the€Defendant€of€his€right€to€a€unanimous€jury€verdict.€€He€first€maintainsÏthat€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€contradicted€the€felony€murder€instruction€by€permittingÏa€murder€conviction€based€on€an€act€or€failure€to€act€which€ð ðunlawfully€contributedððÏto€the€death€of€the€victim€rather€than€the€felony€murder€requirement€that€heÏð ðunlawfully€killedðð€the€victim.€Ìà àà à€€The€instruction€in€question€was€taken€practically€verbatim€from€theÏTennessee€Criminal€Pattern€Jury€Instructions,€42.14,€regarding€ð ðcause€of€deathððÏwhich€was€in€existence€at€the€time€of€trial,€and€stated€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àBefore€the€Defendant€can€be€convicted€of€anyÏdegree€of€homicide,€the€State€must€have€proven€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt€that€the€death€of€the€deceased,ÏNecia€Vann,€was€brought€about€as€a€result€of€theÏcriminal€agency€of€the€Defendant;€that€is,€that€the€death€ofÏthe€deceased€was€due€to€the€unlawful€act€of€theÏDefendant.Ìà8 àà8 àà àOne€who€unlawfully€inflicts€a€dangerous€woundÏupon€another€is€held€for€the€consequences€flowing€fromÏsuch€injury,€whether€the€sequence€be€direct€or€through€theÏoperation€of€intermediate€agencies€dependant€upon€andÏarising€out€of€the€original€cause.Ìà8 àà8 àà àTo€convict€the€Defendant,€it€is€not€necessary€thatÏhis€act€or€failure€to€act€be€the€sole€cause,€nor€the€mostÏimmediate€cause€of€death.€€It€is€only€necessary€that€theÏDefendant€unlawfully€contributed€to€the€death€of€theÏdeceased.€€Ìà8 àà8 àà àDeath€following€a€wound€from€which€death€mightÏensue,€inflicted€with€intent€to€kill,€is€presumed€to€haveÍbeen€caused€by€such€wound,€and€the€burden€ofÏproceeding€by€offer€of€proof€is€upon€the€Defendant€toÏshow€that€death€resulted€from€some€other€cause€notÏattributable€to€the€Defendant.€€However,€while€the€burdenÏof€proceeding€may€shift,€the€burden€of€proof€never€shiftsÏand€is€always€upon€the€State€to€prove€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€the€death€of€the€deceased€wasÏbrought€about€by€the€unlawful€act€of€the€Defendant.Ìà8 àà8 àà àIf€you€find€the€Defendantððs€acts,€if€any,€did€notÏunlawfully€cause€or€contribute€to€the€death€of€theÏdeceased,€or€if€you€have€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€thisÏproposition,€then€you€œmust€acquit›€œhim.Ì›ÌÌÓÓà àà àAgain€we€conclude€that€these€jury€instructions€were€accurateÏstatements€of€the€law€at€the€time€of€trial,€and€the€trial€court€gave€correct€instructionsÏas€to€the€elements€of€felony€murder€in€such€a€manner€as€to€avoid€confusing€theÏjury.€€We€also€find€that€the€Defendantððs€complaint€that€the€instruction€precluded€aÏunanimous€verdict€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓÓà à(C)€€THE€ð ðBURDEN€SHIFTINGðð€INSTRUCTIONÌÌÓÓà àà àó óThe€Defendant€asserts€that€the€fourth€paragraph€of€the€aboveÏmentioned€instruction€is€unconstitutional€in€that€it€shifted€the€burden€of€proof€to€theÏDefendant.€€Specifically,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€portion€of€the€instructionÏstating€that€the€ð ðburden€of€proceeding€by€offer€of€proof€is€upon€the€Defendant€toÏshow€that€death€resulted€from€some€other€cause€not€attributable€to€the€DefendantððÏconfused€the€jury€and€shifted€the€burden€to€the€Defendant€to€prove€that€his€wifeÏcommitted€the€murder.€€Although€a€similar€instruction€has€recently€met€disapproval€inÏòòState€v.€Ruaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€766,€776€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€it€€is€settled€lawÍthat€a€single€instruction€to€a€jury€may€not€be€viewed€in€isolation€but€must€beÏviewed€in€the€context€of€the€overall€charge.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bolinóó,€678€S.W.2d€40,€43Ï(Tenn.€1984).€€In€this€case,€as€admitted€by€the€Defendant€in€his€brief,€the€trial€courtÏfully€explained€that€the€burden€of€proof€€is€always€upon€the€State€to€prove€that€ð ðtheÏdeath€of€the€deceased€was€brought€about€by€the€unlawful€acts€of€the€Defendant.ðð€€ÏWe€therefore€conclude€that€when€taken€in€the€overall€context,€even€if€the€instructionÏwas€given€in€error,€the€error€was€harmless.€€This€issue€is€also€without€merit.Ìœ›Ìò òà à(D)€€THE€ð ðSEXUAL€PENETRATIONðð€INSTRUCTIONÌó óà àà àThe€Defendant€next€asserts€that€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€on€sexualÏpenetration€was€in€error.€€Specifically,€he€asserts€that€because€the€court€definedÏsexual€penetration€as€ð ð[a]nal€intercourse,€or€any€other€intrusion,€however€slight€of€.€.Ï.€[t]he€anal€opening€of€another€personððs€body,ðð€the€jury€could€thereby€convict€theÏDefendant€of€felony€murder€based€on€evidence€of€anal€penetration.€€He€contendsÏthat€the€jury€should€not€have€been€allowed€to€convict€the€Defendant€of€felonyÏmurder€based€on€anal€penetration€because€the€evidence€of€anal€penetration€wasÏbased€upon€past€incidents€of€sexual€abuse€not€connected€with€the€murder.Ìà àà àThe€Defendant€has€quoted€in€his€brief€only€part€of€the€trial€courtððsÏinstruction€which€in€its€entirety€states€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àSexual€penetration€means€sexual€intercourse,€orÏany€other€intrusion,€however€slight,€of€any€pat€[sic]€of€aÏpersonððs€body€or€of€any€object€into€the€genital€or€analÏopenings€of€another€personððs€body,€but€emission€ofÏsemen€is€not€œrequired.Ì›ÌÌÓÓThe€Defendant€is€thereby€incorrect€in€asserting€that€the€trial€court€instructed€the€juryÏthat€only€evidence€of€anal€penetration€would€allow€him€to€be€convicted€of€felonyÏmurder.€€Moreover,€we€have€previously€determined€that€the€evidence€was€sufficientÏto€convict€the€Defendant€of€felony€murder€and€incest€by€anal€penetration.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.€ÌÌò òÓÓ5.€€WHETHER€PRETRIAL€PUBLICITY€PREJUDICED€THE€DEFENDANT.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àó óThe€Defendant€next€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€changeÏvenue,€in€failing€to€inquire€regarding€the€nature€of€each€jurorððs€exposure€to€prejudicialÏpublicity,€and€in€failing€to€admonish€the€jury€pursuant€to€Rule€24(f),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.ÏP.€€We€disagree.ÌÌò òÓÓœ›à à(A)€€CHANGE€OF€VENUEó óÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motionÏfor€a€change€of€venue€due€to€pretrial€publicity.€€He€claims€that€because€only€four€(4)Ïprospective€jurors€in€the€entire€venire€had€not€heard€of€the€case€and€the€trial€courtÏexcused€more€than€twenty„five€(25)€persons€initially€for€cause,€the€trial€court€shouldÏhave€been€aware€of€the€prejudicial€nature€of€the€pretrial€publicity€and€should€haveÏgranted€the€motion.€€In€support€of€his€argument,€the€Defendant€cites€òòState€v.ÏHooveróó,€594€S.W.2d€743€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€The€matter€of€change€of€venueÍaddresses€itself€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€a€denial€of€a€change€ofÏvenue€will€only€be€reversed€on€appeal€for€an€affirmative€and€clear€abuse€ofÏdiscretion.€€òòState€v.€Batesóó,€804€S.W.2d€868,€877€(Tenn.€1991),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€502ÏU.S.€841€(1992).€€In€this€case€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€on€the€part€of€the€trialÏcourt.Ìà àà àIn€òòHooveróó,€594€S.W.2d€at€746,€this€court€listed€a€group€of€seventeenÏ(17)€factors€to€be€considered€in€determining€whether€to€grant€a€change€of€venue.€ÏAmong€these€are€the€nature,€extent,€and€timing€of€the€pretrial€publicity,€the€degree€ofÏcare€exercised€in€the€selection€of€the€jury,€the€venireððs€familiarity€with€the€publicityÏand€its€effect€upon€them€as€shown€through€their€answers€on€voir€dire,€and€theÏDefendantððs€utilization€of€his€peremptory€challenges.€Ìà àà àIn€this€case,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€carefully€and€meticulouslyÏorchestrated€the€jury€selection€process€to€insure€the€Defendant€a€fair€trial.€€HeÏinstructed€the€prospective€jurors€as€to€their€responsibilities,€questioned€themÏextensively€as€to€pretrial€publicity,€excused€jurors€for€cause,€and€allowed€òòvoir€direóó€inÏpanels€of€three€(3)€prospective€jurors.€€Moreover,€the€Defendant€only€exercised€fiveÏ(5)€of€his€fifteen€(15)€peremptory€challenges.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓÓà à(B)€€FAILURE€TO€INQUIRE€AS€TO€THE€NATURE€OF€EACHÏJURORððS€Ìà àEXPOSURE€TO€PRETRIAL€PUBLICITY.ÌÌÓÓà àà àó óThe€Defendant€asserts€that€no€efforts€were€made€to€assess€theÏlikelihood€of€prejudice€from€pretrial€exposure€and€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÍbeen€exceptionally€vigilant€to€ensure€that€prospective€jurors€had€not€been€exposedÏto€inadmissible€matters€contained€in€the€media€reports.€€However,€as€previouslyÏstated,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€thoroughly€discussed€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence€and€the€Stateððs€burden€of€proof€with€each€of€the€potential€jurors.€€EachÏof€the€jurors€who€served€on€the€jury€indicated€that€they€either€had€no€prior€opinion€ofÏthe€case€or€that€they€could€set€that€opinion€aside.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€ÌÌò òÓÓà à(C)€€FAILURE€TO€ADMONISH€THE€JURY€PURSUANT€TO€RULEÏ24(f),Ìà àTENN.€R.€CRIM.€P.ó óÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admonishing€theÏjury€only€once.€€He€contends€that€the€admonishment€given€the€evening€before€theÏtrial€commenced€and€before€the€jury€was€sworn€was€insufficient€to€protect€againstÏthe€risk€that€the€jurors€would€be€exposed€to€media€coverage€of€the€case.€€WeÏdisagree.Ìà àà àWhen€the€potential€jury€was€selected,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€juryÏas€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àAt€this€point€since€we€have€a€jury,€and€I€want€toÏsay€to€you€that€you€are€embarking€upon€tomorrowÏmorning€a€case€that€is€very€important,€very€important€toÏthe€State€of€Tennessee€and€very€important€to€Gus€WillieÏVann,€and€as€I€said€to€you€this€morning,€all€I€ask€andÏthat€we€all€ask€is€that€you€try€your€very€best€to€do€whatÏyou€believe€justice€is€under€the€facts€of€this€case,€thatÏyou€listen€hard€to€the€evidence€and€make€the€bestÏdecision€you€can€make€and€we€will€all€be€happy.€€SinceÏat€this€point€the€jury€has€not€been€sworn€and€noÏevidence€has€been€presented€we€are€going€to€allow€youÍto€go€to€your€home€this€evening.€€However,€let€me€say€toÏyou€that€you€need€to€feel€as€if€you€were€under€oathÏbecause€these€lawyers€in€both€sides€are€depending€onÏyou€for€justice,€as€well€as€Mr.€Vann€and€the€witnessesÏthat€the€State€is€using€in€their€prosecution.€€They€andÏmyself€are€depending€on€you€for€justice.€€And€in€order€toÏdo€justice€I€would€ask€that€you€refrain€tonight€fromÏwatching€the€television€news€reports,€from€reading€theÏnewspapers,€and€discussing€this€case€with€your€spouseÏor€girlfriend€or€boyfriend.€€I€donððt€mean€you€canððt€say,€ððIððmÏon€the€jury,ðð€but€I€think€that€needs€to€be€it€really.€€One€ofÏthe€hardest€things€that€you€will€be€required€to€do€I€guessÏis€not€talk€about€it.€€But€just€tell€them,€if€it€[is]€your€friends€orÏsomebody€who€wants€to€know,€or€your€husband€or€wife,ÏððHey,€Iððve€been€instructed€not€to€talk€about€it€and€I€will€tellÏyou€about€it€when€its€over.ððÌÌÌÓÓà àà àHere,€the€trial€court€was€commendably€concerned€that€the€juryÏunderstand€its€duty€to€not€discuss€the€case.€€The€trial€court€had€previously€spent€aÏgreat€deal€of€time€during€òòvoiróó€òòdireóó€insuring€that€the€jurors€had€not€formed€and€wouldÏnot€form€an€opinion€until€the€case€was€submitted€to€the€jury.€€The€Defendant€hasÏfailed€to€show€that€any€of€the€jurists€who€actually€sat€on€the€case€were€prejudicedÏby€any€publicity€or€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€repeatedly€admonish€them.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€Garlandóó,€617€S.W.2d€176,€187€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1981);òò€State€v.€Kygeróó,€787ÏS.W.2d€13,€18„19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€This€claim€is€also€without€merit.ÌÌÓÓò ò6.€€WHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT€ERRED€IN€DENYING€DEFENDANTððSÏMOTION€TO€SUPPRESS.ÌÌÌÓÓó óà àà àThe€Defendant€next€claims€that€the€admission€of€evidence€taken€fromÏhis€home€pursuant€to€a€defective€search€warrant€should€have€been€suppressed.€ÍHe€contends€that€the€warrant€was€fatally€defective€in€that€it€did€not€show€a€timeÏsequence€as€to€when€the€victim€died€nor€a€nexus€to€any€incriminating€evidence€toÏbe€found€in€the€home.€€Ìà àà àOn€August€14,€1992,€a€warrant€was€issued€for€a€search€of€the€VannÏresidence.€€Several€items€taken€pursuant€to€the€search€were€admitted€into€evidenceÏat€trial.€The€affidavit€in€support€of€the€warrant€stated€that€the€victim€had€beenÏð ðchronically€sexually€abused,€both€anally€and€vaginally;ðð€that€the€pathologist€whoÏexamined€the€victim€determined€that€sexual€penetration€of€the€victim€occurred€withinÏforty„eight€(48)€hours€of€death;€that€a€sworn€statement€of€another€child€had€beenÏobtained€indicating€that€Bernice€Vann€procured€a€vibrator€from€ð ðthe€bathroom;ðð€thatÏthe€Defendant€told€several€people€that€no€semen€would€be€found€on€the€victim;€Ïthat€Bernice€Vann€indicated€that€a€rope€had€been€about€the€victimððs€neck€and€thatÏð ðthat€rope€or€other€material€used€in€strangulation€of€the€child€may€provide€requiredÏevidence€to€further€establish€the€manner€in€which€death€was€inflicted.ðð€€The€veryÏnext€sentence€stated€that€ð ð[t]he€mobile€home€of€Gussie€Willis€Vann€and€BerniceÏVann€is€equipped€with€a€satellite€dish€which€provides€accessðð€to€adult€televisionÏprogramming.€€The€affidavit€also€stated€that€photographs€of€the€ð ðdeath€sceneðð€hadÏshown€videotapes€which€appeared€to€have€been€non„commercially€copied,€anÏopen€jar€of€vaseline,€and€a€booklet€titled€ð ðHow€to€Help€Your€Kids€Say€No€To€Sex.ðð€Ìà àà àThe€Defendant€relies€upon€the€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.ÏLongstreetóó,€619€S.W.2d€97€(Tenn.€1981),€for€the€proposition€that€the€search€warrantÏwas€defective€because€it€failed€to€show€a€nexus€between€any€incriminatingÍevidence€found€regarding€the€victimððs€death€and€the€Vann€residence.€€In€òòLongstreetóó,Ïlaw€enforcement€officers€obtained€a€warrant€to€search€the€defendantððs€vehicle€afterÏa€shooting.€€The€supporting€affidavit€was€based€partially€on€information€from€theÏvictimððs€uncle€which€established€the€victim€and€the€defendant€were€dating€and€hadÏrecently€argued.€€The€victimððs€uncle€also€related€that€he€loaned€the€defendant€a€.22Ïcaliber€rifle€shortly€before€the€shooting.€€Officers€searched€the€defendantððs€vehicleÏand€found€the€weapon.Ìà àà àIt€was€later€discovered€that€the€affidavit€in€support€of€the€searchÏwarrant€contained€a€false€statement€by€the€police€officer€making€the€oath.€€HeÏstated€that€he€had€received€information€from€the€uncle€ð ðwithin€the€past€twenty„fourÏhoursðð€which€was€proven€to€be€false.€€There€was€also€nothing€in€the€affidavitÏwhich€would€establish€probable€cause€to€believe€that€the€gun€was€in€theÏdefendantððs€car.€€The€court€affirmed€the€intermediate€appellate€courtððs€holding€thatÏthe€search€warrant€was€defective.€Ìà àà àAn€affidavit€is€an€indispensable€prerequisite€to€the€issuance€of€anyÏsearch€warrant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„103.€€Before€a€search€warrant€is€issued,Ïthe€issuing€magistrate€must€make€a€practical€common€sense€decision€as€toÏwhether,€given€all€of€the€circumstances€set€forth€in€the€affidavit,€that€there€is€aÏreasonable€probability€that€evidence€of€a€crime€will€be€found€in€a€particular€place.€ÏòòIllinois€v.€Gatesóó,€462€U.S.€213,€238„39€(1983).€€An€affidavit€supporting€a€searchÏwarrant€must€be€reviewed€in€a€common€sense,€non„hyper€technical€fashion.€€òòStateÏv.€Moonóó,€841€S.W.2d€336,€339€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ìà àà àIn€the€case€before€us,€we€conclude€that€the€affidavit€sufficientlyÏprovided€a€nexus€between€the€Vann€home€and€incriminating€evidence€of€the€crime.€ÏMedical€examiners€had€reported€that€the€victim€had€suffered€multiple€incidents€ofÏsexual€abuse,€one€such€episode€occurring€around€the€time€of€her€death.€ÏPhotographs€of€the€scene€where€the€victim€died€had€shown€sexually€explicitÏmaterials.€€A€reliable€source€told€officers€that€she€had€seen€a€vibrator€in€the€home.€ÏThe€wife€of€the€Defendant€indicated€that€a€rope€had€been€about€the€victimððs€neck.€ÏRead€in€a€ð ðcommon€senseðð€fashion,€the€affidavit€established€that€the€VannÏresidence€was€the€death€scene€and€that€items€connected€to€the€rape€and€murderÏcould€be€found€there.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓÓœÇ7.›€€WHETHER€THE€EVIDENCE€WAS€SUFFICIENT€TO€SUPPORT€THEÏFINDING€OF€THE€ð ðPRIOR€VIOLENT€FELONYðð€AGGRAVATOR.ÌÌÌòòÓÓó óà àà àóóThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€introduction€of€his€two€(2)€priorÏconvictions€for€aggravated€rape€are€insufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€reliance€on€theÏaggravating€circumstance€which€states€that€ð ð[t]he€Defendant€was€previouslyÏconvicted€of€one€(1)€or€more€felonies,€other€than€the€present€charge,€whoseÏstatutory€elements€involve€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„204€(I)(2).€€The€Defendant€contends€that€since€aggravated€rape€may€beÏproved€by€a€showing€that€there€was€unlawful€sexual€penetration€of€a€victim€lessÏthan€thirteen€(13)€years€old,€aggravated€rape€does€not€necessarily€involve€violenceÏto€the€person.òòÌà àà àóóAt€sentencing,€the€State€relied€upon€two€(2)€judgments€of€conviction€forÏaggravated€rape€against€the€Defendant.€€Defense€counsel€objected,€contendingÏthat€in€a€case€of€aggravated€rape€where€the€child€is€under€thirteen,€there€could€be€aÏconsensual€relationship€in€which€there€would€be€no€violence.€€The€trial€courtÏoverruled€the€objection.òòÌóóà àà àThe€Defendantððs€argument€is€without€merit.€€In€òòHoyt€v.€Stateóó,€928ÏS.W.2d€935,€948€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€this€court€stated€unequivocally€that€ð ðrapeÏis€a€serious€offense€which€is€injurious€to€both€the€body€and€mind€of€the€victim.ðð€TheÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€has€impliedly€acknowledged€the€use€of€aggravatedÏrape€as€an€aggravating€circumstance.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€737Ï(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€115€S.Ct.€909€(1995).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€€€ÌÌò òÓÓœÇ8.›€€WHETHER€THE€ð ðHEINOUS,€ATROCIOUS€OR€CRUELððÏAGGRAVATING€CIRCUMSTANCE€WAS€PROPERLY€APPLIED.ÌÌÌÓÓó óà àà àThe€Defendant€claims€that€the€finding€of€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€39„13„204(I)(5)€aggravating€circumstance€was€improperly€applied€becauseÏ(a)€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€finding;€(b)€the€prosecution€engagedÏin€misconduct€by€arguing€an€impermissible€basis€for€the€aggravator;€and€(c)€the€juryÏwas€not€instructed€that,€as€an€element€of€the€aggravating€circumstance,€€it€must€findÏthat€the€Defendant€specifically€intended€to€inflict€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse.ÌÌò òÓÓà à(A)€€INSUFFICIENT€EVIDENCEÌÌÓÓà àà àó óThe€Defendant€maintains€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€supportÏthe€finding€of€the€ð ðheinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€aggravating€circumstance.ðð€€He€arguesÏthat€the€Stateððs€evidence€established€only€that€the€cause€of€death€was€ligatureÏstrangulation,€and€because€there€was€no€testimony€as€to€how€long€the€victimÏwould€have€been€conscious€or€whether€ligature€strangulation€causes€severe€pain,Ïthis€aggravator€was€not€supported€by€the€evidence.Ìà àà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„204(I)(5)€provides€as€anÏaggravating€circumstance€that€ð ð[t]he€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€orÏcruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€toÏproduce€death.ðð€€ð ðTortureðð€has€been€defined€as€the€infliction€of€severe€physical€orÏmental€pain€upon€the€victim€while€he€or€she€remains€alive€and€conscious.€€òòState€v.ÏWilliamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€529€(Tenn.1985).€€The€proof€in€this€case€is€that€theÍvictim€died€while€her€father,€a€person€in€a€position€of€private€trust,€penetrated€theÏvictim€both€anally€and€vaginally.€€Thus,€there€is€more€than€adequate€proof€of€theÏinfliction€of€severe€mental€pain€upon€the€eight€(8)€year€old€victim.€€Ìà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€26€(Tenn.€1996),€our€SupremeÏCourt€recently€held€that€the€term€ð ðserious€physical€abuseðð€as€used€in€theÏaggravator€means€something€distinct€from€ð ðtorture,ðð€that€ð ðseriousðð€alludes€to€a€matterÏof€degree,€and€that€the€abuse€must€be€physical€and€must€be€ð ðbeyond€thatðð€orÏmore€than€what€is€ð ðnecessary€to€produce€death.ðð€€Dr.€Foree,€the€medical€examiner,Ïtestified€that€he€had€observed€blood€coming€from€the€victimððs€vaginal€and€rectalÏarea.€€He€also€noted€a€laceration€in€the€vaginal€area€and€abrasions€on€the€lowerÏextremities.€€Dr.€Toolsie,€the€pathologist,€testified€that€the€sexual€abuse€occurredÏaround€the€time€of€death€as€fresh€bruising€had€appeared€on€the€vaginal€wall.€€HeÏalso€testified€concerning€other€signs€of€trauma€to€the€victim€which€included€aÏcontusion€on€the€scalp,€a€laceration€on€the€inside€of€the€victimððs€mouth,€and€bruisesÏon€the€lower€extremes€of€the€victimððs€body.€€The€knot€on€the€victimððs€head€was€anÏinch€in€diameter.€€In€describing€the€neck€injury€and€cause€of€death€he€determined€Ïthat€ð ð[t]he€magnitude€of€this€muscle€injury€[the€strangulation]€with€associatedÏbleeding€indicates€that€the€pressure€that€must€have€been€applied€to€the€ligatureÏwas€very€substantial.ðð€€€€The€strangulation€was€such€that€it€tore€the€muscles€in€herÏneck.€€He€stated€that€ð ðmuscles€are€very€resilient€organs€.€.€.€[which]€are€not€prone€toÏbeing€torn€very€easily€at€all€.€.€.€.€€This€was€a€violent€strangulation.ðð€€ò òÌà àà àó óIn€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State€asÏmandated€by€the€Supreme€Courtððs€ruling€in€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319Ï(1979),€we€conclude€that€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€certainly€have€found€that€theÏmurder€was€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌœò òÇ›à à(B)€€PROSECUTORIAL€MISCONDUCTÌà àà àó óThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€the€prosecutor€engaged€inÏmisconduct€in€referring€to€ð ðthe€repeated,€repeated,€repeated€anal€abuse€of€this€childððÏwhen€arguing€for€the€application€of€the€ð ðheinous,€atrocious€or€cruelðð€aggravator.€€Ìà àà àIn€successful€claims€of€prosecutorial€misconduct,€the€Defendant€mustÏshow€that€the€argument€was€so€inflammatory€or€the€conduct€so€improper€that€itÏaffected€the€verdict€to€his€detriment.€€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€215€Tenn.€338,€€385ÏS.W.2d€758,€759€(Tenn.€1965).€€In€reviewing€an€allegation€of€improper€conduct,€thisÏcourt€should€consider€several€factors€including€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor,€theÏcurative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court,€the€improper€conduct€viewed€in€contextÏand€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case,€the€cumulative€effect€of€theÏremarks€with€any€other€errors€in€the€record,€and€the€relative€strengths€andÏweaknesses€of€the€case.€€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1976).€€The€trial€judge€has€wide€discretion€in€controlling€the€argument€of€counsel.€ÏThis€discretion€will€not€be€interfered€with€on€appeal€in€the€absence€of€abuseÏthereof.€€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€527€S.W.2d€737,€739€(Tenn.€1975).Ìà àà àDuring€closing€argument€in€the€penalty€phase,€the€prosecutor€madeÏthe€following€argument€to€the€jury:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€third€is€that€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,Ïatrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€seriousÏphysical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produceÏdeath.€€You€have€also€received€evidence€of€that€in€thisÏtrial.€€This€is€the€evidence€you€have€received,€these€neckÏinjuries,€of€what€was€necessary€to€produce€death.€€YouÏhave€also€received€into€evidence€other€injuries€that€goÍbeyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.€€These€are€justÏa€few:€the€doctors€have€testified,€the€pathologist€andÏothers€testified,€there€is€the€contusion€to€the€head,€there€isÏthe€injury€to€the€vaginal€area€that€was€probably€underÏthe€evidence€you€heard€contemporaneous€or€close€toÏdeath,€but€there€was€repeated,€repeated,€repeated€analÏabuse€of€this€child.€€There€were€fading€injuries€that€haveÏbeen€testified€too€[sic].€There€was€a€cut€lip.€€All€of€this€isÏevidence€that€at€this€point€in€this€trial€standsÏuncontradicted€as€to€these€injuries,€and€they€wereÏbeyond€that€necessary€to€produce€œdeath.Ì›ÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€Defendant€failed€to€contemporaneously€object€resulting€in€waiverÏof€this€issue.€€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a);€òòseeóó€òòTeague€v.€Stateóó,€772€S.W.2d€915,€926Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€493€U.S.€874€(1989);€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760ÏS.W.2d€228,€235€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€However,€in€addressing€the€merits,€weÏconclude€that€when€viewed€in€its€entirety,€the€prosecutorððs€closing€argument€did€notÏrise€to€the€level€of€prosecutorial€misconduct.€ò òÌÌà àà à(C)€€IMPROPER€JURY€INSTRUCTIONÌó óà àà àCiting€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€529€(Tenn.€1985),€theÏDefendant€maintains€that€the€jury€was€improperly€instructed€on€this€aggravatorÏbecause€the€instruction€omitted€ð ðany€requirement€that€the€jury€find€that€severeÏphysical€or€mental€pain€was€ððwillfullyðð€inflicted€by€the€Defendant.ðð€€The€followingÏinstruction,€in€pertinent€part,€was€given€by€the€trial€court:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àTennessee€law€provides€that€no€death€penaltyÏshall€be€imposed€by€a€jury€but€upon€a€unanimous€findingÏthat€the€State€has€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÍthe€existence€of€one€or€more€of€the€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstances€which€shall€be€limited€to€the€following:Ìà8 àà8 àà8 àà8 àà8 àà8 à.€.€.Ìà8 àà8 àà8 à(3)€The€murder€was€especially€heinous,Ïatrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€orÏserious€physical€abuse€beyond€thatÏnecessary€to€produce€death.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àYou€are€instructed€that€the€word:Ìà8 àà8 àà8 àà àà àà à.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àððTortureðð€means€the€infliction€of€severeÏphysical€or€mental€pain€upon€the€victim€whileÏhe€or€she€remains€alive€and€conscious.ÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€Defendant€has€misconstrued€the€holding€in€òòWilliamsóó.€€No€savingÏrestriction€that€the€Defendant€must€have€ð ðwillfullyðð€inflicted€severe€pain€on€the€victimÏwas€placed€upon€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„204(I)(5),€but€ratherÏthe€court€has€repeatedly€held€that€the€instruction€sufficiently€narrows€the€class€ofÏdeath„eligible€defendants.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€26€(Tenn.€1996);ÏòòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€181€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2dÏ253,€267€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€115€S.Ct.€743€(1995).€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌò òÓÓ9.€€WHETHER€THE€ð ðREASONABLE€DOUBTðð€INSTRUCTION€VIOLATESÏDUE€PROCESS.ÌÌÌÓÓó óà àà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€he€was€denied€his€rights€under€the€DueÏProcess€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€ConstitutionÏbecause€the€jury€was€unconstitutionally€instructed€concerning€the€meaning€ofÍð ðreasonable€doubtðð€at€the€guilt€and€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€However,€as€theÏDefendant€accurately€notes,€the€Supreme€Court€and€this€court€have€consistentlyÏupheld€the€constitutionality€of€the€instruction.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,Ï734€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€115€S.Ct.€909€(1995);€òòState€v.€Michael€Dean€Bushóó,Ï___€S.W.2d€___,€No.€03S01„9603„CC„00047,€slip€op.€at€29„32,€Cumberland€Co.Ï(Tenn.,€April€7,€1997)(for€publication)(petition€for€rehððg,€filed€4/14/97).€€This€issue€isÏalso€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓÓ10.€€WHETHER€THE€CUMULATIVE€EFFECT€OF€ALL€ERRORS€VIOLATESÏTHE€DEFENDANTððS€CONSTITUTIONAL€RIGHTS.ÌÌÌÓÓó óà àà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€all€errors€allegedÏboth€at€trial€and€at€sentencing€violates€his€constitutional€rights.€€However,€as€thisÏcourt€finds€no€reversible€error€with€respect€to€the€Defendantððs€prior€issues,€this€issueÏis€without€merit€also.ÌÌò òÓÓ11.€€WHETHER€TENNESSEEððS€DEATH€PENALTY€STATUTE€ISÌCONSTITUTIONAL.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àó óThe€Defendant€submits€that€the€ð ðTennessee€death€penalty€statuteÏand€the€imposition€of€the€sentence€of€death€in€this€State€violate€the€Fifth,€Sixth,ÏEighth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution,€as€well€asÏArticle€I,€Sections€8,€9,€16€and€17,€and€Article€II,€Section€2€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitutionðð€because€(a)€the€statute€fails€to€narrow€the€class€of€death„eligibleÍdefendants;€(b)€the€sentence€is€imposed€arbitrarily€and€capriciously;€(c)€electrocutionÏis€cruel€and€unusual€punishment;€and€(d)€the€appellate€review€process€isÏconstitutionally€inadequate.€€Defendant€has€acknowledged€in€his€brief€ð ðthat€theÏmajority€of€the€issues€raisedðð€regarding€the€constitutionality€of€the€Tennessee€deathÏpenalty€statute€have€been€decided€adversely€to€his€arguments€by€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court.€€Defendant€also€admits€he€raised€the€issues€ð ðin€order€to€preserveÏthem€for€later€review.ððÌà àÌò òÓÓà à(A)€€THE€STATUTE€FAILS€TO€NARROW€THE€CLASS€OF€DEATHÌà àELIGIBLE€à àDEFENDANTS.ó óÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€Defendant€first€asserts€that€the€aggravating€circumstances€setÏforth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„204,€ð ðhave€been€so€broadlyÏinterpreted€that€they€fail€to€provide€such€a€ððmeaningful€basisðð€for€narrowing€theÏpopulation€of€those€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€to€those€eligible€for€the€sentenceÏof€deathðð€as€mandated€in€òòFurman€v.€Georgiaóó,€408€U.S.€238,€313€(1972).€€WeÏdisagree.ÌÌò òÓÓà àà à(1)€€THE€ð ðPRIOR€VIOLENT€FELONYðð€AGGRAVATING€à àÌà àà àCIRCUMSTANCE€IS€UNCONSTITUTIONAL.ÌÌÓÓó óà àà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€this€aggravating€circumstance€is€overlyÏbroad€and€contrary€to€the€legislative€intent€in€the€manner€in€which€it€interprets€ð ðpriorÏconvictionðð€for€purposes€of€capital€sentencing.€€However,€this€issue€has€beenÏpreviously€addressed€by€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Caldwellóó,€671€S.W.2d€459,Í465€(Tenn.€1984),€as€correctly€noted€by€the€Defendant€in€his€brief,€in€which€ð ðpriorÏconvictionðð€was€defined€as€the€date€of€the€conviction€for€purposes€of€capitalÏsentencing,€and,€therefore,€is€neither€overly€broad€nor€contrary€to€legislative€intent.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€736€(Tenn.Ï1994),òò€óóòòcert.€deniedóó,€115€S.Ct.€909€(1995).ÌÌò òÓÓà àà à(2)€€THE€ð ðAVOIDING,€INTERFERING€WITH,€OR€PREVENTINGÏTHE€Ìà àà àLAWFUL€ARREST€OR€PROSECUTION€OF€THE€DEFENDANTðð€Ìà àà àAGGRAVATING€CIRCUMSTANCE€IS€UNCONSTITUTIONAL.ÌÌÌÓÓó óà àà àThe€Defendant€maintains€that€because€this€circumstance€has€beenÏapplied€in€cases€where€a€victim€ð ðcould€have€identified€the€perpetratorðð€theÏcircumstance€in€itself€does€not€sufficiently€narrow€the€population€of€death€eligibleÏdefendants.€€The€trial€court€directed€a€judgment€against€the€application€of€thisÏaggravating€circumstance.€Therefore,€this€circumstance€was€neither€found€by€theÏjury€nor€charged€in€this€case,€and€the€issue€is€moot.ÌÌÓÓò òà àà à(3)€€THE€ð ðHEINOUS,€ATROCIOUS,€OR€CRUELððÏCIRCUMSTANCEÌà àà àIS€VAGUE€AND€OVER€BROAD.ó ó€ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€Defendant€asserts€that€this€circumstance€is€unconstitutional€in€thatÏit€does€not€include€an€element€of€intent,€but€we€have€previously€addressed€thisÏclaim€in€this€opinion€and€found€it€to€be€without€merit.€€òòSeeóó€ðð€III(8)(C).ÌÌò òÓÓà àà à(4)€€IN€COMBINATION,€SUBSECTIONS€(I)(2),€(5),€(6),€AND€(7)ÏDOÌà àà àNOT€NARROW€THE€CLASS€OF€DEATH€ELIGIBLEÏDEFENDANTS.€ó óÌÌœ›ÌÓÓà àà àThe€Defendant€argues€that,€in€combination,€these€aggravatingÏcircumstances€encompass€the€majority€of€homicides€committed€in€this€State,€andÏthe€statute€does€not€therefore€narrow€the€class€of€death€eligible€defendants.€€Again,Ïthe€Supreme€Court€has€repeatedly€rejected€this€argument.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€926ÏS.W.2d€at€742.ÌÌò òÓÓà à(B)€€THE€DEATH€SENTENCE€IS€IMPOSED€CAPRICIOUSLY€AND€à àÌà àARBITRARILY.ÌÌœ›ÓÓó óà àà àOn€multiple€grounds,€the€Defendant€asserts€that€the€death€penalty€isÏimposed€capriciously€and€arbitrarily,€but€all€grounds€have€been€previouslyÏaddressed€by€our€Supreme€Court.€€He€asserts€that€(1)€unlimited€discretion€is€vestedÏin€the€prosecutor€as€to€whether€or€not€to€seek€the€death€penalty;€(2)€the€deathÏpenalty€is€imposed€in€a€discriminatory€manner€due€to€economics,€race,€geography,Ïand€gender;€(3)€there€is€a€lack€of€uniform€standards€for€jury€selection;€(4)€the€deathÏqualification€process€skews€the€make„up€of€the€jury€and€results€in€a€prosecutoriallyÏprone€jury;€€(5)€defendants€are€prohibited€from€addressing€jurorsðð€misconceptionsÏabout€such€matters€as€cost€of€incarceration€versus€execution,€deterrence,€andÏmethod€of€execution;€(6)€the€jury€is€required€to€agree€unanimously€in€order€to€imposeÍa€life€sentence;€(7)€the€jury€is€required€to€unanimously€agree€that€mitigating€Ïcircumstances€are€applicable€in€violation€of€òòMills€v.€Marylandóó,€486€U.S.€367€(1988)Ïand€òòMcKoy€v.€North€Carolinaóó,€494€U.S.€433€(1990);€(8)€the€jury€is€not€instructed€onÏthe€meaning€and€function€of€mitigating€circumstances;€(9)€the€jury€is€not€required€toÏmake€the€ultimate€determination€that€death€is€the€appropriate€penalty€because€ofÏthe€ð ðmechanisticðð€procedure€for€guiding€the€juryððs€decision€making;€and€(10)€theÏdefendant€is€denied€final€closing€argument€in€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial.€€We€findÏthe€Defendantððs€arguments€to€be€without€merit.€€They€have€been€specificallyÏrejected€in€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€926€(Tenn.€1994),òò€cert.€deniedóó,€116ÏS.Ct.€99€(1995),€and€their€substance€rejected€in€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2dÏ239€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€497€U.S.€1031€(1990);òò€State€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2dÏ589€(Tenn.€1990),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€112€L.Ed.€861€(1991)òò;€State€v.€Tealóó,€793€S.W.2dÏ236€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.€1991);òò€State€v.€Smithóó,Ï857€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€1993),òò€óóòòcert.€deniedóó,€114€S.Ct.€561€(1994);€andòò€State€v.ÏCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253€(Tenn.€1994).€ÌÌò òà à(C)€€ELECTROCUTION€IS€CRUEL€AND€UNUSUAL€PUNISHMENT.ÌÓÓÓÓà àà àó óThe€Defendant€contends€that€electrocution€is€an€unnecessarily€painfulÏand€torturous€form€of€execution.€€€However,€this€issue€has€also€been€previouslyÏdetermined€by€our€Supreme€Court,€and€accordingly,€we€conclude€that€this€issue€isÏwithout€merit.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€179.ÌÌÓÓò òà à(D)€€€THE€APPELLATE€REVIEW€PROCESS€IS€CONSTITUTIONALLY€Ìà àINADEQUATE.ÌÌÓÓà àà àó óThe€Defendant€asserts€that€the€appellate€review€process€is€notÏmeaningful€and€is€conducted€in€violation€of€due€process.€€The€Defendant€notes€thatÏno€death€sentence€has€been€overturned€on€the€grounds€that€it€wasÏdisproportionate.€€He€attacks€the€absence€of€written€findings€concerning€mitigatingÏcircumstances,€the€inadequacy€of€the€information€found€in€forms€completed€by€trialÏcourts€as€required€by€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€12,€and€the€lack€of€anyÏpublished€indicia€or€criteria€for€consideration€which€can€be€addressed€by€theÏDefendant.Ìà àà àNumerous€cases,€however,€have€held€that€TennesseeððsÏproportionality€review€is€adequate€to€meet€State€constitutional€standards.€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€Colemanóó,€619€S.W.2d€112,€115„16€(Tenn.€1981);€òòState€v.€Barberóó,€753€S.W.2dÏ659,€663„668€(Tenn.€1988);€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€926€S.W.2d€727,€743„44€(Tenn.€1994).€ò òÏó óMoreover,€in€this€particular€case,€published€opinions€and€available€trial€court€reportsÏprepared€pursuant€to€Rule€12€of€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€have€beenÏreviewed,€and€this€examination€revealed€that€the€Defendantððs€death€sentence€isÏneither€excessive€nor€disproportionate€considering€both€the€nature€of€the€crime€andÏthe€Defendant.€€òòSee€State€v.€Coeóó,€655€S.W.2d€903€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Irick,€óó762ÏS.W.2d€121€(Tenn.€1988);òò€State€v.€Cauthernóó,€778€S.W.2d€39€(Tenn.€1989)€(deathÏsentence€reversed€and€remanded€for€new€sentencing€hearing€on€ground€of€trialÏcourt€error€in€admitting€statement€by€the€defendant€during€sentencing€hearing);€òòStateÍv.€Keenóó,€926€S.W.2d€727€(Tenn.€1994)€(death€sentence€reversed€and€remanded€forÏnew€sentencing€hearing€due€to€error€in€jury€instruction).Ìà àà àThe€sentence€of€death€in€this€case€was€not€imposed€in€an€arbitraryÏfashion.€€The€evidence€in€the€record€supports€the€juryððs€finding€of€the€statutoryÏaggravating€circumstances,€and€that€the€aggravating€circumstances€clearlyÏoutweighed€the€evidence€introduced€to€establish€any€mitigating€factors€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1).ò òÌÌÓÓœÇ12.›€€WHETHER€THE€INDICTMENT€CHARGING€THE€DEFENDANT€WITHÏINCEST€IS€FATALLY€DEFECTIVE.ó óÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€a€supplemental€brief€the€Defendant€raises€the€issue€of€whether€theÏindictment€charging€him€with€incest€is€fatally€defective€pursuant€to€this€courtððs€holdingÏin€òòState€v.€Roger€Dale€Hill,€Sr.óó,€No.€01C01„9508„CC„00267,€Wayne€Co.€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€Jun.€20,€1996)€(Rule€11€application€granted,€Jan.€6,€1997).€€In€òòHillóó€thisÏcourt€held€that€an€indictment€alleging€the€Defendant€ð ðððdid€unlawfully€sexuallyÏpenetrate€[M.H.]€a€person€less€than€thirteen€(13)€years€of€age,€in€violation€ofÏòòTennesseeóó€òòCodeóó€òòAnnotatedóó€[ðð€]€39„13„512'ðð€was€ð ðfatally€defective€because€[theÏindictment]€does€not€allege€that€he€sexually€penetrated€[M.H.]€intentionally,Ïknowingly,€or€recklessly.ðð€€òòHillóó,€slip€op.€at€5.€€The€Defendant€in€the€case€at€barÏmaintains€that€the€indictment€charging€him€with€two€(2)€counts€of€incest€did€notÏallege€the€proper€mens€rea.€€We€do€not€agree.Ìà àà àThe€indictment€at€issue€charged€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àGUSSIE€WILLIS€VANN€AND€BERNICE€ANN€VANNÌà8 àà8 àon€or€about€the€30th€day€of€July,€1992,€in€McMinnÏCounty,€Tennessee,€and€before€the€finding€of€thisÏindictment€did€unlawfully€engage€in€sexual€penetration,€ofÏthe€vaginal€opening€as€defined€in€T.C.A.€39„13„501,€ofÏNecia€Vann,€a€person€the€said€Defendants€know€to€beÏtheir€daughter,€in€violation€of€T.C.A.€39„15„302,€all€of€whichÏis€against€the€peace€and€dignity€of€the€State€ofÏTennessee.ÌÌÓÓ€à8 àà8 àà àà àà àà à.€.€.ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àOn€or€about€the€30th€day€of€July,€1992,€in€McMinnÏCounty,€Tennessee,€and€before€the€finding€of€thisÏindictment€did€unlawfully€engage€in€sexual€penetration€ofÍthe€anal€opening€as€defined€in€T.C.A.€39„13„501,€of€NeciaÏVann,€a€person€the€said€Defendants€know€to€be€theirÏdaughter,€in€violation€of€T.C.A.€39„15„302,€all€of€which€isÏagainst€the€peace€and€dignity€of€the€State€of€œTennessee.Ì›ÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€537€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),Ïthis€court€held€that€an€indictment€is€not€fatally€defective€ð ðif€the€elements€of€theÏoffense€are€necessarily€implied€from€the€allegations€made.ðð€€This€court,€citingÏòòMarshallóó,€recently€held€that€ð ð[i]f€an€offense€is€alleged€in€such€a€way€that€theÏdefendant€cannot€fail€to€be€apprised€of€the€elements€of€the€offense,€the€indictment€isÏsufficient,€notwithstanding€the€fact€that€an€element€may€not€be€specifically€alleged.ðð€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€John€Haws€Burrellóó,€No.€03C01„9404„CR„00157,€slip€op.€at€31,ÏAnderson€Co.(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Feb.€11,€1997)(Rule€11€application€filed,ÏApril€10,€1997).€Ìà àà àThe€Defendant€in€this€case€was€charged€with€incest.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€€€€€ðð€39„15„302€defines€the€offense€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(a)€A€person€commits€incest€who€engages€in€sexualÏpenetration€as€defined€in€ðð€39„13„501,€with€a€person€heÏor€she€knows€to€be,€without€regard€to€legitimacy:Ìà8 àà8 àà8 à(1)€The€personððs€natural€parent,€child,Ïgrandparent,€grandchild,€uncle,€aunt,Ïnephew,€niece,€stepparent,€stepchild,Ïadoptive€parent,€adoptive€child;€orÌà8 àà8 àà8 à(2)€The€personððs€brother€or€sister€of€theÏwhole€or€half„blood€or€by€adoption.Ìà8 àà8 à(b)€Incest€is€a€Class€C€œfelony.Ì›ÌÌÓÓà àà à€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„11„301(c)€states€that€ð ð[i]f€theÏdefinition€of€an€offense€within€this€title€does€not€plainly€dispense€with€a€mentalÍelement,€intent,€knowledge,€or€recklessness€suffices€to€establish€the€culpableÏmental€state.ðð€€The€above€statute€and€applicable€definitions€neither€require€norÏð ðplainly€dispenseðð€with€the€requirement€of€a€culpable€mental€state,€and€thus,€theÏterms€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„11„301(c)€apply.€€Pursuant€to€theÏabove€cited€case€law,€however,€to€sufficiently€allege€elements€of€the€offense,€theÏindictment€must€allege€or€ð ðnecessarily€implyðð€that€the€Defendantððs€sexualÏpenetration€of€his€daughter€was€done€either€intentionally,€knowingly,€or€recklessly.€€ItÏis€our€opinion€that€the€mens€rea€of€ð ðknowinglyðð€is€necessarily€implied€by€theÏallegation€in€the€indictment€that€Defendant€engaged€in€the€sexual€penetration€of€aÏperson€known€by€the€Defendant€to€be€his€daughter€in€violation€of€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€39„15„302.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIV.€€òòCONCLUSIONóóó óÌÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€Defendant€has€offered€no€grounds€that€warrant€relief€from€hisÏconvictions€of€felony€murder,€incest€by€vaginal€penetration,€and€incest€by€analÏpenetration.€€Moreover,€we€conclude€that€the€Defendant€has€failed€to€establish€anyÏground€warranting€relief€from€his€sentence€of€death.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€Judge