ÿWPCS =w Í]!ïÜvÁùÞ}p —åqbªZp·A9ƒ¿C5'muƒ4ÃÔÕÑ—¯ô7C>vß´â&P‘ºJžÒ©ÑΜ9ºÑH…#4{òûÿL?Þ#h^•‰‡¡Ã‘Š…m+047´•HDñ滀—47œ°&3HŸUМãI•Ñ¿ÄÃgMHzÌIø¨±xGåó°€Ç ¸¶O$ö¬ Ûª<|·-+˜   aeµÕ„ŒŽÃʹp hÆXaIvBÆõ"2ñ áEÇC}óü¦7ªQOKÀvá8µAý1{š®[÷(3rÁÇ=šÊPAš– W!¯)M?V-x9æD 3v0ýè_ùÁÛ>c<˜øIi(zº(C»o¡½Rð]^T3L¦O¢’`P¬Ê¾€/&8L½–H*îR¯ˆœ<;ÒîÌ9Æ0üöä{ó(â8R,iÈÏIiÊåõl>ð·ùA6!ÐÀp“5B»“i£OX¶8loóÇ@ްr5ø%‚yeäU@9@k’ŒL'š¬«=Ýá¼I—Ò¹¯£¤)‰?+ÁuÙsâ³”»ñPT„Añú‰rª²ôc’#¼PÊÞü:E $­Â>€WJÛ§…lñ¹ëÛV…U.F %t bz ~ ” ÿ¦ ¥ n­µ b 0(j U:’ w¸Ì 4„ # ˜ 0™£ 0D<U":€ÀºNz^ |ˆ mÿ0U/É„M‰c"ì" "0 £R U:õ" B/#šL#U:æ#÷ $U:(U:Q(º‹(U:E)¶)U:5+Uo+U:Ä,‰þ,U:‡/ÉÁ/U:Š1ÿÄ1U:Ã3ý3U:5I5 0D_5å£5 D3ˆ6U:»6¶õ6º«8óe9£X=šû?ü•@Æ ‘DåWPU:×ñdJññdJñ׃ ×ñdJñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòIdóó.Ð à€ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€evidence€of€the€1985€rape€was€inadmissible€because€it€essentiallyÏwas€probative€of€no€material€issue€other€than€showing€the€defendant€acted€"inÏconformity€with€the€character€trait."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€Additionally,€the€dangerÏof€unfair€prejudice€was€substantial.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€€The€narration€of€the€rape€incident€wasÐ @à Ðhighly€prejudicial€in€and€of€itself,€and€this€prejudice€was€only€exacerbated€in€theÏ1985€victim's€narration€of€the€defendant's€post„rape€comments€in€which€he€mulledÏwhether€to€kill€the€1985€victim.€€This€part€of€the€evidence€is€not€relevant€to€theÏdefendant's€asserted€proclivity€to€rape€and€needlessly€increased€the€prejudicialÏeffect€of€the€testimony.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFor€all€of€the€above€reasons,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erredÏwhen€it€admitted€the€evidence€of€the€prior€rape.€€The€question€which€remains€is€whatÏeffect€the€erroneous€admission€of€this€evidence€had€on€the€jury.€€The€extremelyÏprejudicial€character€of€this€evidence€coupled€with€the€jury's€finding€of€guilt€of€felonyÏmurder€despite€legally€insufficient€evidence€of€attempted€rape,€as€discussed€inÏsection€II€below,€leads€us€to€conclude€that€the€error€more€probably€than€not€affectedÏthe€verdict.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€òòcfóó.€òòState€v.€Ron€Puglisióó,€No.€01C01„9205„Ð  2@), ÐCC„00166€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€July€21,€1994)€(admission€of€sexuallyÏoriented€material€for€purpose€of€demonstrating€defendant's€intent€to€commitÏaggravated€sexual€battery€was€reversible€error).€€As€such,€the€defendant€shouldÏreceive€a€new€trial€on€the€lesser€offense€of€second€degree€murderñdJñ׃?×ñdJññdJñ׃#×ñdJñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€at€which€thisÐ   Ðevidence€is€excluded.€€òòAccordóó€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð à€ Ð1995)€(remand€for€new€trial€on€lesser€grade€offense€where€evidence€insufficient€toÏsupport€conviction€of€greater€offense€and€prejudicial€trial€error€committed).ÌÌà@àà,àò òIIó óˆÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àWe€move€next€to€consideration€of€two€related€issues,€whether€the€trialÏcourt€should€have€granted€the€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€and€whether€theÏevidence€is€sufficient€to€sustain€the€defendant's€conviction€of€felony€murder.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àA€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€is€a€question€of€the€sufficiency€ofÏthe€state's€evidence€of€the€defendant's€guilt€of€the€crime€charged.€€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€656Ð  #@ ÐS.W.2d€60,€61€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1983).€€Accordingly,€the€standard€for€determiningÏwhether€a€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€should€be€granted€is€analogous€to€theÏstandard€employed€in€reviewing€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€after€aÏconviction€has€been€imposed.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jerry€Burkeóó,€No.€02C01„9510„CR„Ð  +À!$ Ð00319,€slip€op.€at€10„11€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Jackson,€Dec.€12,€1996),€òòperm.€app.Ð - #& Ðdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€916€S.W.2d€471,€473€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.Ð à.€%( Ð1995).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWÔ‡XÙŽXX Xâ^Ôhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€anÐ €4 +. Ðappellate€courtððs€standard€of€review€is€whether,€after€considering€the€evidence€in€theÐ d6-0 Ðlight€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÐ `  Ðessential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,Ð 0 Ð Ð443€U.S.€307,€324,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2791„92€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2dÐ ü œ Ð63,€67€(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€applies€to€findings€of€guiltÏbased€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€andÏcircumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.Ð `  Ð1990).€€€Ô#† Xâ^XXXÙŽy#ÔÐ ,Ì  ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ‡XÙŽXX Xâ^Ôà ` àà ¸ àMoreover,€Ô#† Xâ^XXXÙŽÆ|#Ôa€criminal€offense€may€be€established€exclusively€byÐ Øx Ðcircumstantial€evidence.€€€€òòDuchac€v.€Stateóó,€505€S.W.2d€237€(Tenn.€1973);€òòState€v.Ð ¼\ ÐJonesóó,€901€Ô‡XÙŽXX Xâ^ÔS.W.2dÔ#† Xâ^XXXÙŽñ}#ÔÔ‡XÙŽXX Xâ^Ô€393,€396€Ô#† Xâ^XXXÙŽ9~#ÔÔ‡XÙŽXX Xâ^Ô(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€19Ô#† Xâ^XXXÙŽ…~#ÔÔ‡XÙŽXX Xâ^Ô95);€òòState€v.€Lequireóó,€634€S.W.2dÐ œ< Ð608€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€However,€before€an€accused€may€be€convicted€of€aÏcriminal€offense€based€upon€circumstantial€evidence€alone,€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€"must€be€so€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€every€other€reasonableÏhypothesis€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant."€€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€225€Tenn.€478,€470Ð ä"„ ÐS.W.2d€610€(1971);€òòJonesóó,€901€Ô#† Xâ^XXXÙŽÛ~#ÔÔ‡XÙŽXX Xâ^ÔS.W.2dÔ#† Xâ^XXXÙŽÓ€#ÔÔ‡XÙŽXX Xâ^Ô€at€396.€€€€In€other€words,€"[a]€web€of€guiltÐ °$P Ðmust€be€woven€around€the€defendant€from€which€he€cannot€escape€and€from€whichÏfacts€and€circumstances€the€jury€could€draw€no€other€reasonable€inference€save€theÏguilt€of€the€defendant€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòCrawfordóó,€470€S.W.2d€at€613;Ð *´ $ ÐòòState€v.€McAfeeóó,€737€S.W.2d€304,€305€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).Ð à+€"& ÐÔ#† Xâ^XXXÙŽ#ÔÌÔ‡XÙŽXX Xâ^Ôà ` àà ¸ àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€should€notÐ Œ/,&* Ðreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779Ð X1ø', Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€theÏweight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€theÏevidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ð ¼6\-2 Ð(Tenn.€1978).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theÐ ˆ8(/4 Ðtrier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2dÐ `  Ð856,€859€(1956);€€òòFarmer€v.€Stateóó,€574€S.W.2d€49,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€OnÐ , Ì Ðthe€contrary,€this€court€must€afford€the€State€of€Tennessee€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimateÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.Ð 0 ÐÔ#† Xâ^XXXÙŽƒ#ÔÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€the€date€the€victim€was€killed,€first€degree€felony€murder€wasÏdefined€as€"[a]€reckless€killing€of€another€committed€in€the€perpetration€of,€orÏattempt€to€perpetrate€any€first€degree€murder,€arson,€rape,€robbery,€burglary,€theft,Ïkidnapping€or€aircraft€piracy[.]"€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2)€(1991)Ï(amended€1995).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€the€relevant€date,€the€definition€of€rape€included€"unlawful€sexualÏpenetration€of€a€victim€by€the€defendant€or€of€the€defendant€by€a€victim€.€.€.€[where]Ï[f]orce€or€coercion€is€used€to€accomplish€the€act."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„¼503(a)(1)€(1997).׃@×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€With€respect€to€criminal€attempt,€the€Code€providesÐ %¼ ÐÓÓà8 ` àA€person€commits€criminal€attempt€who,€acting€with€the€kind€ofÏculpability€otherwise€required€for€the€offense:Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(1)à ¸ àIntentionally€engages€in€action€or€causes€a€result€that€wouldÐ Ü(|" Ðconstitute€an€offense€if€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€conductÏwere€as€the€person€believes€them€to€be;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(2)à ¸ àActs€with€intent€to€cause€a€result€that€is€an€element€of€theÐ ¬+L"% Ðoffense,€and€believes€the€conduct€will€cause€the€result€without€furtherÏconduct€on€the€person's€part;€orÐ ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(3)à ¸ àActs€with€the€intent€to€complete€a€course€of€action€or€cause€aÐ |.%( ÐÑ/eÑÑаÑÑ  ÑñoJñÑ/eÑÑаÑÑ  ÑñoJññmJñÑ/eÑÑаÑÑ  ÑñmJññlJñÑ/eÑÑаÑÑ  ÑÑ/eÑÑаÑÑ  ÑñlJññkJñÑ/eÑÑаÑÑ  ÑÑ/eÑÑаÑÑ  ÑÑ/eÑÑаÑÑ  ÑñkJñresult€that€would€constitute€the€offense,€under€the€circumstancesÏñ`JñÑ/eÑÑаÑÑ  ÑÑ/eÑÑаÑÑ  Ññ`Jññ_JñÑ/eÑÑаÑÑ  Ññ_Jññ^JñÑ/eÑÑаÑÑ  Ññ^Jññ]JñÑ/eÑÑаÑÑ  Ññ]Jñœsurrounding›€the€conduct€as€the€person€believes€them€to€be,€and€theÏconduct€constitutes€a€substantial€step€toward€the€commission€of€theÏoffense.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101(a)(1)„(3)€(1997).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€there€is€sufficient€circumstantialÏevidence€that€œWillis€knowingly›€killed€the€victim.€€The€victim€referred€to€the€defendantÏas€her€"ride."€€She€had€been€in€the€parking€lot€of€the€Golden€Jukebox€around€2:30Ïa.m.,€and€after€the€defendant's€truck€was€seen€leaving€the€parking€lot,€the€victimÏwas€not€seen€again.€€The€victim's€body€was€found€in€a€remote€location€near€theÏdefendant's€worksite.€€Moreover,€the€worksite€was€in€the€Port€Royal€area,€where€theÏñhJñÑ/eÑÑаÑÑ  ÑñhJñdefendant€had€told€a€neighbor€he€took€all€his€girlfriends.€€Tire€tracks€from€a€full„sizeÏvehicle€were€seen€in€this€location€the€morning€after€the€victim's€disappearance,€andÏthe€defendant€drove€a€Chevrolet€Silverado€pickup€truck.€€The€defendant€had€accessÏto€torque€screwdrivers.€€Initially,€the€defendant€was€untruthful€with€investigatorsÏabout€whether€the€victim€had€been€in€his€truck€on€the€night€of€her€disappearance;Ïhowever,€later€he€admitted€she€had€been€in€the€truck.€€The€defendant€madeÏstatements€to€acquaintances€indicating€he€had€killed€the€victim.€€His€girlfriend€wasÏseen€wearing€a€ring€like€the€victimððs€that€had€not€been€recovered€from€the€victim'sÏbody.€€The€girlfriend€was€overheard€telling€the€defendant's€sister€that€the€ring€hadÏbeen€a€gift€from€the€defendant.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àHowever,€even€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€there€isÏinsufficient€evidence€that€the€defendant€recklessly€killed€the€victim€òòin€the€attempt€toÐ 30*- Ðperpetrate€a€rapeóó.€€The€state€offered€proof€that€carpet€fibers€were€found€on€theÐ p5,/ Ðvictim's€clothing,€including€a€fiber€found€on€her€panties.€€These€fibers€wereÏconsistent€with€€the€carpet€in€the€defendant's€truck.€€There€was€evidence€the€victim'sÏshoes€were€removed,€her€denim€mini€skirt€had€a€horizontal€wrinkling€pattern€and€herÐ ;°15 Ðcrop€top€was€at€least€somewhat€out€of€place.€€There€was€no€forensic€proof€of€anÏattempted€sexual€assault;€in€fact,€there€was,€at€best,€minimal€evidence€from€whichÏthe€occurrence€of€a€struggle€might€be€inferred.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€our€review€of€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,Ïwe€have€not€overlooked€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€committed€a€rape€in€hisÏvehicle€in€1985,€even€though€we€have€concluded€in€section€I€of€this€opinion€thatÏsuch€evidence€was€erroneously€admitted.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Longstreetóó,€619€S.W.2d€97,Ð €  Ð100„01€(Tenn.€1981);€òòState€v.€Bernard€T.€Andersonóó,€No.€02C01„9710„CR„00394,Ð ` Ðslip€op.€at€22€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Apr.€23,€1999).€€As€noted€above,€Ô‡XÙŽXX Xâ^Ôthe€factsÐ @à Ðand€circumstances€of€a€case€built€entirely€upon€circumstantial€evidence€"must€beÏso€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€every€other€reasonable€hypothesis€save€the€guiltÏof€the€defendant."€€òòCrawfordóó,€225€Tenn.€at€484,€470€S.W.2d€at€613;€òòJonesóó,€901Ð ¼\ ÐÔ#† Xâ^XXXÙŽ—›#ÔÔ‡XÙŽXX Xâ^ÔS.W.2dÔ#† Xâ^XXXÙŽ #ÔÔ‡XÙŽXX Xâ^Ô€at€396.Ô#† Xâ^XXXÙŽR#Ô€€The€proof€presented€at€trial,€even€giving€the€state€the€benefit€of€theÐ ˆ!( Ðimproperly€admitted€evidence,€fails€to€rise€to€that€level.׃A×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€evidence€supports€aÐ l#  ÐÑg?ÑÑ` ÑÑÐÑÑ  ÑñoJñÑg?ÑÑ` ÑÑÐÑÑ  ÑñoJññmJñÑg?ÑÑ` ÑÑÐÑÑ  ÑñmJññlJñÑg?ÑÑ` ÑÑÐÑÑ  ÑÑg?ÑÑ` ÑÑÐÑÑ  ÑñlJññkJñÑg?ÑÑ` ÑÑÐÑÑ  ÑÑg?ÑÑ` ÑÑÐÑÑ  ÑÑg?ÑÑ` ÑÑÐÑÑ  ÑñkJññ`JñÑg?ÑÑ` ÑÑÐÑÑ  ÑÑg?ÑÑ` ÑÑÐÑÑ  Ññ`Jññ_JñœÑGAÑÑø` ÑÑÐÑÑ  Ññ_Jññ^JñœÑKÑÑÐÑÑ  Ññ^Jñœlogical›€inference€that€the€defendant€attempted€to€rape€the€victim€before€killing€her.€ÏEqually,€the€evidence€supports€a€logical€inference€that€œthere€was›€no€sexualÏencounter€at€all.€€What€the€evidence€does€not€support€is€an€inference€of€theÏdefendant's€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€to€the€exclusion€of€every€otherÏreasonable€hypothesis.€Thus,€the€felony€murder€conviction,€based€upon€a€recklessÏkilling€in€the€attempt€to€perpetrate€a€rape,€cannot€stand.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€question€of€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€aÏñhJñÑg?ÑÑ` ÑÑÐÑÑ  ÑñhJñverdict€of€guilt€of€premeditated€murder€is€beyond€our€realm€because€the€juryÏacquitted€the€defendant€of€that€charge.€€However,€we€may€consider€whether€theÏevidence€is€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€of€second€degree€murder€as€a€lesserÏoffense€of€œfirst›€œdegree€felony€murder.›€€In€that€regard,€we€find€the€evidence€sufficientÏto€support€a€finding€of€the€defendant's€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOften€this€court€will€modify€a€conviction€of€a€greater€offense€of€whichÏthe€evidence€is€insufficient€to€a€lesser€offense€of€which€the€evidence€is€sufficient.€Ð (#  ÐòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€George€Blake€Kellyóó,€No.€01C01„9610„CC„00448€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð %  ÐApp.,€Nashville,€Oct.€13,€1998)€(second€degree€murder€conviction€dismissed€forÏinsufficient€evidence€and€lesser€grade€conviction€of€vehicular€homicide€imposed).€ÏThe€present€case€is€complicated,€however,€by€the€erroneous€admission€of€highlyÏprejudicial€prior€bad€act€evidence€as€discussed€œabove.€€In€addition,€although€secondÏdegree€murder€is€a€lesser€grade€of€felony€murder,€itñWJñ€wouldñWJñ€requireñXJññMJñsñMJññXJñ€a€finding€of€aÏknowing€killingñYJñ,ñYJñ€whereas€the€jury€here,€under€the€then€ñRJññQJñañQJññRJññSJñapplicable€felony€murderÏstatuteñSJññbJññSJñsñSJññbJññSJñ,€found€the€defendant€guñSJññTJññSJñuulktñSJññTJññUJñilty€of€a€reckless€killing.€€ñUJññVJñ›€›€ñVJññZJñDue›€to›€this›€evidentiary›€error,›€wñZJññ[JñWñ[Jñe›€believe€the€betterÏcourse€is€to€reverse€the€defendant's€conviction€of€felony€murder€and€remand€for€a€œñiJñÐ  4-0 ÐÑÌEÑѼÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑñiJñnew›€trial€on€the€lesser€offense€of€second€degree€murder.€€òòAccordóó€òòBordisóó,€905Ð `  ÐñiJñÑÌEÑѼÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑñiJñS.W.2d€214.Ìñ`JñœÑŸOÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ññ`JñœÌ›à@ÄÄ,àò òIIIó óˆÐ   Ðà ` àà ¸ àNext,€Willis€claims€that€the€trial€court€improperly€admitted€photographsÏof€the€crime€scene.€€Generally,€these€four€photographs׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€depict€the€decaying€bodyÐ À`  Ðof€the€victim€in€the€brushy€location€where€it€was€discovered.€€Willis€argues€that€theseÏphotographs€do€not€show€the€position€of€the€body€at€the€time€of€the€crime,Ïdemonstrate€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€offense,€or€illustrate€the€struggleÏof€the€victim€or€the€ferocity€of€the€attack.€€Rather,€he€claims,€their€sole€value€to€theÏprosecution€was€to€inflame€the€jury.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€state€defends€the€trialÏñhJñÑÌEÑѼÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑñhJñcourt's€admission€of€these€photographs€as€probative€of€(1)€the€time€of€death€asÏdemonstrated€by€the€level€of€decomposition€present€and€(2)€whether€an€attemptedÏrape€occurred€as€demonstrated€by€the€positioning€of€the€victim's€clothing.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àTechnically,€consideration€of€this€issue€has€been€pretermitted€by€ourÏfinding€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€defendant's€conviction€ofÏfelony€murder.€€However,€because€there€will€be€a€new€trial€on€second€degreeÏmurder,€we€take€this€opportunity€to€address€the€guidelines€for€admission€of€crimeÏscene€photographs.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€determining€whether€photographs€should€be€admitted,€the€trial€courtÏmust€determine,€first,€whether€the€photograph€is€relevant.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564Ð  2@), ÐS.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978);€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€"'Relevant€evidence'€meansÏany€evidence€having€any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€œñaJñÐ `6-0 ЇÌñaJñconsequence›€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€thanÏit€would€be€without€the€evidence."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€If€the€trial€court€deems€theÏphotograph€to€be€relevant,€it€may€then€allow€its€admission€if€its€probative€value€is€notÏ"substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€ÏIn€this€regard,€photographic€depictions€of€murder€victims€carry€the€danger€ofÏinherent€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€951.€€In€order€to€assess€theÐ  @  Ðprejudicial€effect€of€the€admission€of€such€photographs,€the€supreme€court€has€saidÏthe€trial€judge€is€to€considerÌÓÓà8 ` àthe€value€of€the€photographs€as€evidence,€that€is,€their€accuracy€andÏclarity,€and€whether€they€were€taken€before€the€corpse€was€moved,Ïif€the€position€and€location€of€the€body€when€found€is€material;€theÏinadequacy€of€testimonial€evidence€in€relating€the€facts€to€the€jury;Ïand€the€need€for€the€evidence€to€establish€a€òòprima€facieóó€case€of€guiltÐ   Ðor€to€rebut€the€defendant's€contentions.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓÓòòIdóó.€€On€appeal,€a€trial€court's€decision€to€admit€a€photographic€exhibit€is€reviewableÐ Ð p Ðfor€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòIdóó.€at€949.Ð °"P ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€photographs€in€question€are€unpleasant.€€They€show€evidence€ofÏdecomposition€of€the€body.€€There€is€also€evidence€of€significant€entomologicalÏactivity.€€Three€of€the€photographs€are€not€clearly€focused,€so€their€unpleasantÏcharacter€is€diminished.€€The€more€focused€photograph€shows€the€victim's€bodyÏfrom€the€waist€down.€€Decomposition,€entomological€activity,€and€possible€animalÏactivity€affected€the€medical€examiner's€ability€to€render€opinions€regarding€theÏcondition€of€the€body€at€the€time€of€death€as€well€as€her€ability€to€estimate€the€timeÏof€death€itself.€€The€time€of€death€was€particularly€relevant€to€the€question€of€theÏdefendant's€guilt€of€the€victim's€murder.€€These€photographs€serve€to€illustrate€theÏcondition€of€the€body€with€precision€and€corroborate€the€testimony€of€the€medicalÏexaminer.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,€888„89€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)Ð 09Ð/3 Ð(photograph€admitted€to€corroborate€other€evidence);€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878Ð `  ÐS.W.2d€530,€542€(Tenn.€1994)€(photograph€of€corpse€admitted€to€illustrateÏtestimony).€œñaJñÔ‡X2MXX X2MÔÔ#† XoXXXo´#ÔñaJñ›€The€photographs€demonstrate€the€location€of€the€victim's€clothing.€€TheÏstate€offered€testimony€that€the€victim's€crop€top€was€slightly€out€of€place€and€herÏshoes€were€missing.€€The€photographs€define€the€condition€of€the€victim's€clothingÏwith€much€more€precision€than€the€spoken€word.€€They€were€properly€admitted.€€IfÏthe€state€seeks€to€introduce€these€or€similar€photographs€at€the€defendant's€retrialÏon€second€degree€murder,€the€trial€court€will€be€obliged€to€renew€its€inquiry€inÏaccord€with€these€principles.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà@¹¹,àò òIVó óˆÐ  À Ðà ` àà ¸ àNext,€Willis€challenges€the€propriety€of€Agent€Breedlove's€testimonyÏthat€Willis€threatened€to€snap€his€neck,€that€Willis€was€shaking€and€trembling€whenÏhe€was€shown€a€screwdriver€the€agent€believed€to€be€the€murder€weapon,€and€thatÏWillis€"lawyered€up"€during€interrogation.€€We€address€these€issues€to€provideÏguidance€on€remand.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€first€portion€of€this€testimony€relates€to€the€defendant's€statementÏto€then„District€Attorney€General€Patrick€McCutchen€and€an€encounter€theÏdefendant€had€with€Agent€Breedlove€outside€the€defendant's€apartment€complex.€ÏThe€gist€of€the€complaint€appears€to€be€that€the€state€elicited€testimony€from€AgentÏBreedlove€that€he€surreptitiously€observed€an€interview€between€Willis€and€GeneralÏMcCutchen€via€hidden€camera.€€Agent€Breedlove€testified€that€during€the€course€ofÏthe€interview,€Willis€recounted€a€previous€conversation€between€himself€andÏBreedlove€in€which€Breedlove€asked€Willis€how€he€killed€the€victim.€€According€toÏBreedlove,€Willis€said€"he€wouldn't€have€done€it€that€way,€he€would€have€taken€meÏand€if€he€wanted€to€kill€me,€he€would€have€taken€me€and€snapped€my€neck."€€ThisÐ  :À04 Ðtestimony€led€the€prosecution€to€ask€Agent€Breedlove€about€a€heated€verbalÏconfrontation€between€the€defendant€and€himself,€a€high€point€of€which€was€theÏdefendant's€exhortation€to€Breedlove€that€"he€was€going€to€break€[his]€f„„„„„„€neckÏ.€.€.€."ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€admission€of€the€"snapped€neck"€statement€was€not€raised€in€theÏmotion€for€new€trial.€€Hence,€appellate€review€has€been€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï3(e)€("no€issue€presented€for€review€shall€be€predicated€upon€error€in€the€admissionÏor€exclusion€of€evidence€.€.€.€unless€the€same€was€specifically€stated€in€the€motionÏfor€a€new€trial;€otherwise€such€issues€will€be€treated€as€waived").€€For€purposes€of€Ïretrial,€however,€we€note€the€evidence€is€relevant€as€a€portion€of€the€defendant'sÏprior€statements€to€law€enforcement€officers.€€The€defendant€was€advised€of€hisÏrights€before€he€made€the€statement€to€General€McCutchen€in€which€he€recalled€theÏearlier€conversation€with€Agent€Breedlove.€€We€disagree€with€the€defendant'sÏcharacterization€of€the€"snapped€neck"€statement€as€a€threat€and€view€it€as€anÏabstract€statement€of€how€the€defendant€would€kill€someone€if€he€were€so€inclined.€ÏThe€statement€was€properly€admitted€and€was€not€unfairly€prejudicial.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð `'  ÐR.€Evid.€401,€403,€803(1.2).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€the€other€hand,€there€can€be€no€doubt€that€the€statement€theÏdefendant€made€outside€his€apartment€complex€was€a€direct€threat€to€AgentÏBreedlove's€physical€well„being.€€In€òòTillery€v.€Stateóó,€565€S.W.2d€509,€511€(Tenn.Ð À0`'* ÐCrim.€App.€1978),€this€court€held,€"[a]ny€attempt€by€an€accused€to€conceal€orÏdestroy€evidence,€including€an€attempt€to€suppress€the€testimony€of€a€witness,€isÏrelevant€as€a€circumstance€from€which€guilt€of€the€accused€may€be€inferred."€€InÏòòTilleryóó,€the€defendant€threatened€an€eyewitness€several€months€after€the€crime.€€€òòIdóó.Ð @8à.2 Ðat€510.€€Although€òòTilleryóó€does€not€present€precisely€the€same€factual€scenario,€weÐ  :À04 Ðbelieve€it€is€sufficiently€analogous€to€lend€support€to€the€case€at€bar.€€Here,€theÏdefendant€knew€he€was€the€subject€of€an€on„going€investigation.€€Agent€BreedloveÏleft€his€business€card€with€a€note€indicating€his€desire€to€talk€to€the€defendant€on€theÏdefendant's€windshield.€€Later€the€same€day€the€defendant€saw€Agent€BreedloveÏand€motioned€for€him€to€step€out€of€his€car.€€The€defendant€then€initiated€a€verbalÏassault€which€included€the€threat€to€break€the€agent's€neck.€€Obviously,€theÏdefendant's€goal€was€to€intimidate,€if€not€physically€harm,€a€law€enforcement€officerÏwhom€he€knew€was€investigating€his€involvement€in€the€victim's€death.€€Accordingly,Ïwe€believe€this€evidence€was€circumstantially€probative€of€the€defendant's€guilt.€ÏFurthermore,€we€find€greater€probative€value€in€this€evidence€than€prejudicial€effect.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€Thus,€there€was€no€error€in€its€admission.Ð  À ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWillis€also€alleges€error€in€Agent€Breedlove's€testimony€that€when€heÏconfronted€the€defendant€with€a€torque€screwdriver€and€told€the€defendant€that€heÏknew€what€had€been€used€to€kill€the€victim,€Willis€began€shaking€and€trembling.€ÏWillis€claims€this€evidence€should€not€have€been€admitted€absent€expert€testimonyÏthat€there€was€a€connection€between€nervousness€and€guilt.€€We€disagree.€€ThisÏcourt€has€recently€held€that€a€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€allowing€a€lawÏenforcement€officer€to€testify€about€personal€observations€of€a€defendant'sÏdemeanor€during€the€taking€of€the€defendantððs€statements€and€that€suchÏobservations€may€be€of€assistance€to€the€jury€"in€determining€the€weight€andÏcredibility€of€the€defendant's€statements."€€òòState€v.€James€Clayton€Young,€Jr.óó,€No.Ð À0`'* Ð01C01„9605„CC„00208,€slip€op.€at€49€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€May€22,€1998)Ï("the€defendant€'appeared€calm'").€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÏadmitting€this€evidence.ÌÌœñjJñÐ   :À04 ÐñjJññoJñ›ñoJññnJñÑ€6GÑñnJñ›à ` àà ¸ àThe€third€complaint€is€that€when€Agent€Breedlove€held€up€the€torqueÏscrewdriver€and€told€the€defendant€he€knew€what€the€murder€weapon€had€been,€theÏdefendant€"lawyered€up,€he€wanted€his€lawyer."€€Immediately€upon€the€agent€givingÏthis€testimony,€the€defense€objected€and€the€court€instructed€the€jury€to€disregardÏthe€statement.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€the€state€concedes€on€appeal,€this€testimony€was€inappropriate.€ÏÔ‡XÙŽXX Xâ^ÔWe€recognize€that€the€prosecution€may€present€evidence€that€an€accusedÐ €  Ðterminated€questioning€at€some€point€after€being€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€andÐ Lì Ðinitially€electing€not€to€exercise€his€rights.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòWare€v.€Stateóó,€565€S.W.2dÐ ¸ Ð906,€908€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€It€is€apparent,€however,€that€Agent€Breedlove'sÏcharacterization€of€the€defendant's€invocation€of€his€right€to€counsel€as€lawyering€upÏwas€an€inflammatory€denigration€of€the€exercise€of€constitutional€rights.Ô#† Xâ^XXXÙŽÞÔ#Ô€€On€retrial,Ð | Ðthe€state€should€insure€that€this€witness€does€not€testify€in€this€inflammatory€andÏimproper€manner.ÌÌà@ÕÕ-àò òVó óˆÐ '   Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€remaining€issues,€Willis€questions€whether€prosecutorialÏmisconduct€required€a€mistrial,€whether€a€continuance€was€in€order€when€the€stateÏfailed€to€provide€information€regarding€two€potential€lay€witnesses,€and€whether€anÏexpert's€testimony€should€have€been€excluded€because€the€state€did€not€provide€theÏexpert's€written€report€prior€to€trial.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àSome€of€the€errors€of€which€the€defendant€complains€hinge€onÏdiscovery€matters.€€Although€the€state€was€tardy€in€providing€some€discoveryÏinformation€and€other€information€which€should€have€been€provided€was€misplacedÏby€the€state,€it€appears€that€the€defense€has€received€the€statements€which€wereÐ À9`04 ÐÑ6GÑÑ ` ÑÑ  ÑñoJñÑ6GÑÑ ` ÑÑ  ÑñoJñœnot›€misplaced€and€has€heard€the€testimony€of€the€any€witnesses€whose€statementsÏwere€misplaced.€€The€defense€should€be€able€to€proceed€with€full€information€andÏhave€proper€time€for€investigation€upon€retrial.€€Accordingly,€it€is€not€necessary€thatÏwe€consider€the€issues€which€pertain€to€undisclosed€discovery€materials.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð À   ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€remaining€allegations€require€brief€analysis.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFirst,€the€defense€attacks€evidentiary€admissions;€however,€he€doesÏthis€under€the€heading€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€and€does€not€explain€whyÏadmission€was€error€under€the€rules€of€evidence.€€Without€some€citationÏdemonstrating€that€the€evidence€should€not€have€been€admitted,€we€are€at€a€lossÏto€understand€how€the€prosecution€committed€misfeasance€in€offering€the€evidence.€Ï€We€decline€to€speculate€in€that€regard.׃$×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(b)€(issuesÐ  € Ðnot€supported€by€citation€to€authority€shall€be€treated€as€waived);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð €` Ð27(a)(7)€(briefs€shall€contain€citation€to€authority).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAdditional€allegations€are€made€regarding€the€prosecution'sÏexamination€of€witnesses.€€Willis€claims€that€one€of€the€prosecutors€"testified€fromÏthe€podium€that€the€reward€had€been€withdrawn."€€The€prosecutor€asked€a€witnessÏon€redirect€examination,€"Did€you€know€that€the€reward€had€subsequently€beenÏwithdrawn,€did€you€know€that?"€€The€defense€objected,€and€the€prosecutor€indicatedÏhe€was€not€sure€whether€evidence€had€been€introduced€that€the€reward€had€beenÏwithdrawn.€€In€fact,€no€such€evidence€had€been€received.€The€court€instructed€theÏjury€to€disregard€the€question.€€On€retrial,€the€prosecution€should€refrain€from€askingÏquestions€which€are€premised€upon€facts€not€in€evidence€or€which€mischaracterizeÏthe€evidence.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€prosecutor€asked€JimmyÏBrumfield€whether€the€defendant's€girlfriend€was€"pretty€much€dog„face€ugly."€ÏApparently,€the€prosecutor€was€attempting€to€discredit€evidence€that€Brumfield€andÏthe€defendant's€girlfriend€had€been€intimate,€which€was€relevant€to€potential€bias€ofÏBrumfield€against€the€defendant.€€The€state€concedes€on€appeal€that€"thisÏstatement/question€was€ill„advised."€€Accordingly,€this€court€expects€the€prosecutionÏto€pursue€a€more€prudent€line€of€questioning€on€remand.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFinally,€because€we€have€already€granted€the€defendant€a€new€trial,Ïit€is€not€necessary€that€we€analyze€his€claim€of€cumulative€error€from€his€variousÏallegations€of€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€ÌœñlJñÌ›à ` à›ñkJñÐ  @8à.2 ÐñkJññlJññmJñ›ñmJññmJñÌñmJñ›à ` àIn€conclusion,€the€defendant's€conviction€of€felony€murder€is€reversed.€€ThisÏmatter€is€remanded€to€the€Robertson€County€Criminal€Court€for€a€new€trial€œonñpJñ€ñpJñ›œñpJñthe€›ñpJññoJñÐ  à7À04 ÐñoJññqJñthe€ñqJñlesser›€grade€offense€of€second€degree€murder.ÌÌÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌ