WPC,w  WP_TV07995978P6A)sportscesd)ssIBWPTVWPC2 6<DO]k~J@BDASoundLibInterfaceLibPrivateInterfaceLibSoundComponentSeV{WP}10{WP}01 HelveticaLWP 6.0 watermark a@@@U{WP}12   M{WP}11   PWP 6.0 captionM{WP}16 # FHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLhHU : Q,  AZ"Arial Regular % X6 0( ($b - -Nw@ D////+///Ӏ"4 uM% 3|x (^ 0P Q((3/Q$ !   d z 0 l ((3$ !      0  R 0D (#$  0   XX      2    Dr.JohnThomasSexton,whoexaminedMr.SimmonsattheHickmanCountyHospital  describedhiswoundsastheworsthehadeverseeninhisthreeyearsofemergencyroomexperience.Heanalogizedthewoundsto somethingthatwouldbeseeninamilitaryoperation. XX      3    TheobjectionwasnotinterposeduntiltheAssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneralwasquotingJohn  AnglinashorttimethereafterandthatobjectioncamefromJohnAnglinscounsel.However,wetreattheobjectionandtheCourtsadmonitionasapplyingtobothquotations._ XoXXX,XXo   Ad FILEDXoX,  August25,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM HU:F,cAZ"Arial Regular+ B dR 0D(3$ !  A D3<'dxd Ao$y  <<= 8C] AO$C<< C=Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5R 0D($$   1  = D/G' dxd+ BvP Pd  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   inion Geneva  inion Geneva Corel WordPerfect4Q3.5.1'3.5.1, 1996 Corel Corporation Limited,Q3.5.1Created with WordPerfect 3.5.1.%(#Z %xHH(FG(HH(d'hwYX@2PSetBPJobNStylZwp60versSTR WDatPtPt YS|YN9J (_}  #! +t( |:.7 >  !YS, >YM( YO YM, YN YN LYN  rYM YN YM YN YN YO YMt yYM rYM YO$ YO<* CYNL YL YN zYN@ RYO YM4 YO YI 7YI gY[4{WP}10WP 6.0 watermark a{WP}12{WP}11WP 6.0 caption{WP}16{WP}01"Hs0.' '" {WP}10 <<KK ..,,..,,  Helvetica۶HHlHзHHs0Hзs0Hs06з(d(ٷ(d( ٬A 7oXXdd7A "   Arial Regular" Э     m sjl.'$' {WP}10 <<KK   Helvetica   Helvetica  $Y@Y@Y@FILED$ 0$' '0F$2August 25, 19982@F@N Cecil W. Crowson$N\' '$Appellate Court ClerkY@Y@Y@m       0' '0 &IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEEܶ$-' '$ܶAT NASHVILLE 0-<--' '0ܶ$<J' '$ܶ DECEMBER SESSION, 1994 0JYJJ' '0ܶYgܶguܶ  uܶ  ܶ  ܶSTATE OF TENNESSEE,$$)  ܶ$$$$$$) NO. 01C019403CC00106  ܶ$APPELLEE,$$$) ܶ$$$$$$) WILLIAMSON COUNTYܶ$$$$$$) ܶVS.$$$$$)  HON. DONALD P. HARRIS,JUDGEܶ$$$$$$) ܶ$$$$$$) ( FIRST DEGREE MURDER,ܶBILLY ANGLIN and$$$) ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE+ܶSTEVE ANGLIN,$$$) 0MURDER, AGGRAVATEDASSAULT,+Gܶ$$$$$$) RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT)GUܶ$APPELLANTS.$$) Ucܶ$$$$$$cqܶqܶܶ÷FOR APPELLANT BILLY ANGLIN: $FOR THE APPELLEE:ܶܶLarry D. Drolsum$$$$John Knox WalkupܶAssistant Public Defender$$$Attorney General & Reporter ܶ407 C. Main Street!ܶFranklin, TN 37065$$$$Kimbra R. Spann "ܶ$$$$$$$Counsel for the State!#ܶVirginia Lee Story $$$$Criminal Justice Division"$ܶP. O. Box 1608$$$$450 James Robertson Parkway#% ܶFranklin, TN 37065$$$$Nashville, TN 372430493$& ܶ%''ܶ&('5ܶ÷FOR APPELLANT STEVE ANGLIN:')5Cܶ(*CQܶJ. Timothy StreetJ)+Q_ QQ++_ lJܶ136 4th Avenue South,o}ܶFranklin, TN 37064,n|ܶ-|ܶ.ܶ/ܶ0ܶOPINION FILED: ___________________1ܶ2ܶ3ܶ 4ܶAFFIRMED 5ܶ 6ܶ 7ܶ 8$ܶJERRY SCOTT, SPECIAL JUDGE $$$9$2ܶ:2@ܶ$;@N'$'$ܶ  з÷   ͷ ͪ    ͫ      ͷO P I N I O N 0<NrN' '0ܶ=rܶ$3The    Appellants    were convicted of murder in the first degree, attemptedmurder in the first degree, aggravated assault and reckless endangerment. Bothwere sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder, twentyfive years in the stateLpenitentiary for the attempted murder, four years imprisonment for the aggravatedassault and two years imprisonment for the reckless endangerment. All of thet]sentences except the murder sentence are to be served concurrently, with both/   Appellants    being designated Range I standard offenders. All of the concurrent.sentences are to be served consecutively to the murder sentence, yielding aneffective sentence of life imprisonment plus twentyfive years. FܶJG G lJܶ$FThe offenses occurred in Hickman County. The venue was changed toEWilliamson County where the    Appellants    were convicted after a lengthy ten dayjury trial.JܶKܶ$jOn appeal the    Appellants    have presented nine identical issues. In the firstissue they challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence.MMܶNMhܶ$On August 23, 1991, Steve Anglin, accompanied by    Billy    Anglin and armedwith his shotgun, had gotten out of his truck at Dotties Trailer Park and madestatements threatening Buddy Simmons and Linda Lee Anglin, who was marriedDDto Johnny Ray Anglin, a brother of the Appellants. He grabbed Mrs. Anglin by thehair, slapped her three or four times, called her a  slut and threatened to kill her,9telling her he was  fixing to blow [her] brains out. He also said  that son of a bitch33in the yellow trucks going to get some too. The only yellow truck there belongedto Buddy Simmons.Vh@ܶW@[ܶ$Mrs. Anglin went into her trailer and called the police. Steve Anglin cameinto her trailer and said if she was calling the law, he would kill her. She stayedon the telephone until officers arrived, during which time Steve Anglin againthreatened to kill her if she had him arrested.[[ܶJ\ \ lJܶ$Nonetheless, Mrs. Anglin went to get a warrant for Steve Anglins arrest,`but the sheriff would not allow her to have one issued. She returned to the trailerpark to get her fiveyearold son whom she had left with Bess Besson._Cܶ`C^ܶ$UUNeither Steve Anglin nor Billy Anglin were at the trailer park when she;arrived. However, while she was at Ms. Bessons trailer, she heard the Anglinsarrive. She heard loud music.c^ܶdܶ$;Steve Anglin and Billy Anglin were sitting close to one another on the backof a car with the radio in the car playing loudly. Steve Anglin was banging on agarbage can and screaming for someone to make him turn the radio down. There[nwas a shotgun leaning between the men. Linda Anglin got very scared and wentback to get a warrant for Steve Anglins arrest.iQܶjQlܶ$As the Appellants sat on the car, Buddy Simmons was seen walkingtoward the car where the Appellants were sitting. Steve Anglin shot into themground in front of Buddy and Buddy backed away, after which Steve shot into theUUground again. Buddy stood still while Steve reloaded the gun, then Buddygrabbed the gun and swung it at Steve.$ol' '$ܶbp  p  l' 'bܶ$[nJohn Anglin, father of Steve and Billy Anglin, lived in the trailer park. #{WP}11  1     "Hs0.'  '" {WP}10 <<KK   HelveticaHHs06 $  1  John Anglin was tried with the Appellants. He was found guilty of aggravated assault and'  'reckless endangerment. He is not an appellant in this case.֭ Billy ' '9went to his fathers trailer and said  Daddy, I need the gun. He got a shotgun. Ashe left the trailer, he put the gun to his shoulder and started swinging it andshooting. One shot hit Ms. Besson, who lived with Buddy Simmons. She hadbeen outside trying to get Mr. Simmons to go back inside their trailer. At the timeshe was shot, she was returning to her trailer. She was not armed.v  ܶw ܶ$Rose Haskins was hit on the  rear end by one of the shots. She was takento the hospital. She recovered and testified at the trial.y ܶz  0ܶ$Mr. Simmons was also hit by one of the shots fired by Billy Anglin and hefell. As Mr. Simmons laid on the ground, Billy Anglin then shot him again. BillyAnglin then went to Mr. Simmons, put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger. It clicked, apparently out of ammunition. Steve Anglin then pulled the shotgunback, put it to Mr. Simmons head and pulled the trigger. Again, the gun clicked. 0 ܶ ܶ$Steve Anglin then got down on the ground where Mr. Simmons was lying[nand was described by a witness as making motions with his hands like he was carving something up. He then stood up and began kicking and  stomping Mr.Simmons.J > #* > lJܶ N iܶ$ffThe medical proof revealed that Mr. Simmons had very large andUnumerous lacerations to his abdomen, chest, back, face, back of his head, ears,over his eyes, to his tongue, arms and legs, as well as a cut throat. The[nlacerations to his arms were so deep that his bones were visible to his elbows. 33Parts of his left thigh was blown away by the shotgun blast midway to his buttocks with much of the muscle and tissue in that area blown away. Both bones in hislower left leg were fractured, and his right ulna was fractured. He had an evulsioninjury to his right hand and his fifth finger (pinky) was destroyed. Miraculously, Mr.Simmons recovered after extensive medical treatment requiring eleven separate9surgeries and fortynine days of hospitalization at Vanderbilt University Medical' 'Center in Nashville. #{WP}11  2   ] $$ "Hs0.'  '" {WP}10 <<KK   HelveticaHHs06 $  2  Dr. John Thomas Sexton, who examined Mr. Simmons at the Hickman County Hospital'  'described his wounds as the worst he had ever seen in his three years of emergency roomexperience. He analogized the wounds to  something that would be seen in a military operation. $]֭0 i  w)' '0ܶ ܶ$During the shooting incident, Billy Anglin was heard to say to Mr. Simmons, What are you going to do now, you son of a bitch? ܶ ܶ$The autopsy revealed that Ms. Besson died of gunshot wounds to severalvital organs including the left carotid artery, left subclavian artery and multiple leftjugular veins. Three pieces of a deer slug were removed from her body. The slug6 86  l6entered her lower neck at the top of her sternum and exited in the area of the leftshoulder blade. Ms. Besson was dead at the scene.  ܶ ܶ$]A TBI Crime Laboratory forensic expert tested the firearms found at the%scene. A shotgun was identified as the weapon from which the fatal .410 gaugeshell was fired. Other spent shotgun shells were identified as having been fired;from the .12 gauge shotgun found at the scene. Both shotguns were surrenderedto law enforcement officers by John Anglin, the father of Billy and Steve Anglinwho had picked them up and taken them inside his mobile home. Four live .410shotgun shells were found in Steve Anglins left pants pocket. qܶqܶ$8Brenda Davis testified that immediately after the incident Billy AnglinUappeared  calm and collected and made small talk with her husband as hewalked to his trailer, which was located behind Mr. and Mrs. Davis trailer. Ms.Davis further testified that Steve Anglin  flipped us all a bird as he was beingdriven away by the law enforcement officers.ܶ.ܶ$The          Appellants    argue that the evidence is insufficient to establish all of theelements of the attempted murder in the first degree of Mr. Simmons. Thus, theyUreason there can be no conviction for that offense committed upon Mr. Simmons,$nor can there be a conviction for the felony murder of Ms. Besson. Specifically,33they contend there is no evidence of  premeditation, or  deliberation, essential6 7. l6elements of first degree murder which must exist in order for one to be convictedof an attempt to commit that offense..ܶܶ$In State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530, 543 (Tenn. 1992), our Supreme Court/held that  deliberation requires  a process of carefully weighing such matters as؞the wisdom of going ahead with the proposed killing, the manner in which thet]killing will be accomplished, and the consequences which may be visited upon;the killer if and when apprehended.  Deliberation is present if the thinking, i.e.,the  premeditation is being done in such a cool mental state, under thecircumstances, and for such a period of time as to permit a  careful weighing ofthe proposed decision to kill.ܶ ܶ$By this holding our highest court abandoned the prior holdings thatpremeditation and deliberation can occur in an instant. That is not to say,[nhowever, that one must carefully plot and plan a killing for an extended period forthe killing to be murder in the first degree. It is clear that the Appellants had theUUintent to do grievous injury to Mr. Simmons when they were at the trailer park thatafternoon. They had threatened to kill Mr. Simmons, and deliberately attractedjMr. Simmons attention when they arrived the second time by banging a garbagecan and playing the radio at a loud volume. As soon as Mr. Simmons came out,6Steve Anglin shot twice in his direction and reloaded the gun. Billy Anglin shotnMr. Simmons twice and they each put the gun to Mr. Simmons head and pulled6 7 l6I%the trigger. Then Steve Anglin carved up Mr. Simmons body so severely that thephysicians who treated him at Vanderbilt were utterly amazed that Mr. Simmonssurvived.  xܶxܶ$In State v. West, 844 S.W.2d 144, 148 (Tenn. 1992), a postBrown case,our Supreme Court noted that  (c)almness immediately after a killing may beevidence of a cool dispassionate, premeditated murder.ܶܶ$The rules of appellate review are so firmly entrenched in Tennesseejurisprudence that they hardly need be restated. A jury verdict, approved by thetrial judge, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution andresolves all conflicts in favor of the theory of the State. State v. Hatchett, 560$S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tenn. 1978). On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongestlegitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferencesOwhich may be drawn therefrom. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 836 (Tenn.*1978). A guilty verdict removes the presumption of innocence and raises ajpresumption of guilty on appeal, State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn.1973), which the defendant has the burden of overcoming. State v. Brown, 551S.W.2d 329, 331 (Tenn. 1977). When the sufficiency of the evidence ischallenged, the question for appellate courts is whether, after reviewing theevidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of factcould find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia,6 ^7  l6443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2782, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). An examination of theUcircumstances of the crimes in this case reveals that there was ample, indeedFoverwhelming evidence from which any rational trier of fact would find theUUAppellants guilty of all of the offenses just as the jury did. The issues challengingthe sufficiency of the convicting evidence have no merit.ܶ+ܶ$;In the next issue, the Appellants contend that the trial judge erred by failingto grant a severance of the defendants.+aܶa|ܶ$33The Appellants submitted an agreed order to consolidate the offenses fortrial. Thus, this issue was waived by each Appellant. Rule 36(a), Tenn. R. App. P.|ܶܶ$/In the third issue, the Appellants challenge the admission of a photographIof Ms. Bessons corpse. They contend that under the holding in State v. Banks,E564 S.W.2d 947, 951 (Tenn. 1978) the photograph should not have been33admitted because it is particularly gruesome and was introduced simply toinflame the jury.TܶToܶ$ffIn Banks the Supreme Court held that the admissibility of photographicUevidence, like other evidence, rests within the sound discretion of the trial judgeand in that case the Supreme Court found the photograph admissible. oܶJ  7  lJܶ$;The Appellants contend that since they did not contest the fact that the fatalshot to Ms. Bessons body came from the gun fired by Billy Anglin, and since the6medical examiner testified as to the cause of her death, the photograph was of noprobative value and was merely cumulative.WܶWrܶ$/The fact that the medical examiner had testified concerning the wounds to*a deceased does not render the proffered photograph cumulative. State v. VanTran, 864 S.W.2d 465, 477 (Tenn. 1993).rܶܶ$UUIn this case, the photograph showed the nature and extent of the injuries;inflicted upon Ms. Besson and causing her death. Although it can certainly besaid that all photographs of corpses are gruesome, especially to those notI%accustomed to seeing the dead, it cannot be said that the photograph in this casejis particularly so. Indeed, compared to the photographs admitted in other murderUUcases this photograph showing the corpse lying on the ground with blood aroundher neck and on her right arm is not gruesome at all. This issue has no merit.ܶܶ$fIn the next two issues, the Appellants contend that the prosecutorsffdeliberately engaged in prosecutorial misconduct in the presentation of their finalarguments and that the trial judge erred by failing to grant a mistrial sua sponte,by failing to effectively admonish the States counsel, and by failing to providecurative instructions at the times of the  unethical and prejudicial conduct.J= "7 = lJܶMhܶ$FThe first statement in the argument that is challenged by the Appellantsffwas a quotation of Tracy Anglin, the wife of Steve Anglin who was heard by MarySullivan to have said:  No, Steve, no. hܶ ܶ$t]The Appellants assert that the speaker was the victim who said,  No,*Buddy, no. Our examination of the record clearly reveals that Ms. Sullivanquoted Tracy Anglin (not Ms. Besson) as saying,  No, Steve, dont. Thus thequotation in the argument was correct. In response to the objection, the trialjudge properly overruled the objection and advised the jury that:  You are the final' 'judge of what the facts are, and I will leave that to the jury. #{WP}11  3   c $$ "Hs0.'  '" {WP}10 <<KK   HelveticaHHs06 $  3  The objection was not interposed until the Assistant District Attorney General was quoting'  'John Anglin a short time thereafter and that objection came from John Anglins counsel. However,we treat the objection and the Courts admonition as applying to both quotations.$c֭0z[' '0ܶzܶ$.Next, the          Appellants    contend it was error for an Assistant District AttorneyGeneral to call attention to the fact that Jerry Anglin, a defense witness was a@second cousin of the Appellants who was also married to the Appellants sister. No objection was interposed to that statement. Thus, any objection to thisargument was waived. Rule 36(a), Tenn. R. App. P.ܶJ7  67 lJܶ$UThe State contends that it was proper for the prosecutor to attempt to;undermine the credibility of a defense witness due to his close degree of kinshipto the Appellants both by affinity and consanguinity.Gܶܶ$The State is correct. It was entirely proper for the prosecutor to call@attention to Jerry Anglins close familial relationships to the defendants in order toassert that he was not an impartial witness, but was instead a hostile defensewitness testifying for his kin. ܶ :ܶ$Next, the Appellants challenge a comment regarding John Anglin (who isI%not an appellant) and Steve Anglin where the prosecutor asked the jury to look atww [w]hat did they do to not promote or not assist in the  tense situation. The         Appellants    term this as a  deliberate attempt to shift the jurys focus from the actsof the defendants and to ask the jury to convict (of reckless endangerment) onsome moral obligation contrived by the prosecutor.&:ܶ'ܶ$UThere was no objection to this statement. Therefore, the issue was waived,wwRule 36(a), Tenn. R. App. P. Furthermore, viewed in context, it is clear that themcomment was aimed at John Anglin who, in the words of the prosecutor,  had theDDloaded gun ready to go in a situation that he already knew was a tense situation. This argument has no merit.,~ܶJ-~ ~7-  lJܶ$The fourth statement challenged by the Appellants was  how can you sayselfdefense Ms. Story and Mr. Drolsum?/ܶ0ܶ$In context the statement was:$1' '$ܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷ$$9The weapon was fired five times, five times in selfl' 'defense, ask yourself. Ask yourself, well I will ask how can you say its self defense Ms. Storey, Mr.Drolsum, how can you say it is self defense #5M0#ܶ6M[ܶ7[iܶ$8iw' '$ζ   ͪ    ͫ ͷCounsel for Billy Anglin objected, Steve Anglins counsel did not. The trial judgew' 'sustained the objection and instructed the jury. (The transcript as to the judges'badmonition to the jury was  inaudible, but it is clear from the judges statement, Please do not, that the judge admonished the jury and allowed counsel tobvproceed with his argument.) It is presumed that the jury followed the judgesdirections to disregard that portion of the argument. State v. Blackmon, 701jS.W.2d 225, 233 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985). Furthermore, the argument was a؞perfectly legitimate one in light of the testimony and the physical evidence of theinjuries to Mr. Simmons. Awjܶ Bjܶ$FThe Appellants also found fault with the prosecutor terming their defense ofselfdefense as  ludicrous and as a  smokescreen. The context in which those' 'terms were used was as follows:b E E l' 'bܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷ$$Self defense, Ill show you how its done, he grabs it' 'Uand puts it to his head, same thing, dry fires. Upset by9that, takes out his knife and begins, as Mary Sullivansays, to carve him, to carving, his head, his mouth, histhroat chest, his arms, his belly. Self defense, it isludicrous. It is ludicrous defense of a third person. Shooting a man four times after he is already down ont]the ground after the first shot. Self defense of a third*person, it is a smoke screen and an effort to try to getyou to avoid the crucial issues here in this case.# O r0#ܶP r ܶQ ܶ$R ' '$bvζ   ͪ    ͫ ͷGiven the context of the remarks, to which there was no objection, and the ' 'evidence against the Appellants those appellations describing their defense,@although strong, were not error. Prosecutors, like defense counsel, are entitled totshoot holes in their adversarys theories, although neither is entitled to unfairlyUcharacterize the theories of the other side. While hard blows are permissible,;unfair ones are not. In this case, given the overwhelming evidence of the. carving of Mr. Simmons, it cannot be said that the prosecutors characterizationst]of the defense theory of selfdefense was unfair or impermissible and the*argument clearly had no effect upon the jurys verdict. Again, without objection,/the Appellants cannot be heard to complain about the argument of opposingcounsel. Rule 36(a), Tenn. R. App. P. This issue has no merit. ] !ܶ^!!ܶ$Finally, the Appellants object to the following remark of the prosecutor inffthe rebuttal argument responding to what the Appellants term the defense6 !`"L l6fargument about the abnormal amount of testimony the State produced todescribe the victims injuries:$b!"\' '$ܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷ$$It is that is the only picture that you saw. If the State"\6' 'was interested in gore, we would have brought BuddySimmons in and asked Judge Harris to let him drop hisUpants for you and let you see what it looks like to havea buttock blown away and then muscle taken from the]other to cover up the bone. We could have shown yousome gore if that was our intent because there is plentyof gore in this case.#j"\"0#ܶk""ܶl""ܶ$m""' '$ζ   ͪ    ͫ ͷThe objection interposed by Billy Anglins counsel was sustained by the trial"' 'judge and the trial judge instructed the jury as follows:$o"#,' '$ܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷ$$.General, that is highly improper. I would ask the jury to#,' 'mdisregard the last comment made by the prosecutor,there is no evidence of that in this case.#r#,#V0#ܶs#V#dܶ$$$$$*** t#d#rܶ u#r#ܶ$$9THE COURT: There is evidence that he had that done. There is no evidence of what it looks like.# w##0#ܶ x##ܶ y##ܶ$z##' '$ζ   ͪ    ͫ ͷThe Appellants term the trial judges admonition as  perfunctory and complain#' 'Pthat the judge did not declare a mistrial sua sponte and that the trial judge did notgive a more detailed curative instruction and also  admonish the advocate.}#$ܶ~$$2ܶ$@The trial judge correctly instructed the jury that there was evidence of theinjury, but not as to what Mr. Simmons body looked like after the injury and told6 $M' $2 l6v'them to disregard the argument. Nothing more was required. There is nofrequirement that the judge admonish counsel for improper argument in thepresence of the jury. The purpose of admonitions and curative instructions is tohave the jury properly consider the evidence before it, unimpeded byinappropriate comments from counsel. It is not the function of curative instructionsOto admonish or belittle counsel in the jurys presence. There certainly was nobasis for declaring a mistrial. $2%5ܶ%5%Pܶ$The challenges to portions of the prosecutors arguments and the trialjudges responses thereto have no merit.%P%ܶ%%ܶ$33In the next issue, the Appellants contend the State committed prosecutorialmisconduct by seeking the death penalty in a case in which the facts clearly did]not support the alleged aggravating circumstances, thus giving the State a guiltnprone jury. In the following issue, the Appellants contend the trial court erred by.not conducting or allowing the Appellants to conduct a pretrial hearing to9determine whether sufficient evidence existed to support the alleged aggravatingcircumstances.%&^ܶ&^&yܶ$There is no authority for the proposition that the jury was guilt prone33because the members were death penalty qualified, except the ruminations ofJustice Marshall of the United States Supreme Court in his dissent in Lockhart v.6 &7&y l6UUMcCree, 476 U.S. 162, 106 S.Ct. 1758, 177375, 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986) wherehe analyzed social science studies of death penalty qualified juries and foundthem to be predisposed to believing the defendant is guilty.&y'+ܶ'+'Fܶ$jIn this case, the District Attorney General sought the death penalty as heI%was entitled to do. However, the trial judge announced to counsel at a sidebarmconference that he would, as thirteenth juror, set aside a sentence of death as hefwas not convinced that the aggravating circumstances had been proven beyonda reasonable doubt. There has been no showing, apart from counselsspeculation, that the death penalty qualifications of the jurors contributed to theguilty verdict in this case. As noted earlier in this opinion, the evidence wasclearly sufficient for any rational trier of fact to find the Appellants guilty beyond areasonable doubt. Jackson, 99 S.Ct. at 2782. 'F(9ܶ(9(Tܶ$Further, there is no authority for a pretrial presentation of the States case;to the judge outside the jurys presence to  test fully the States case astsuggested by the Appellants. Indeed, such a procedure would have seriousdouble jeopardy implications. These issues have no merit.(T(ܶ((ܶ$In the eighth issue, the Appellants contend that the verdict is void orNvoidable because one juror, Deanna Little, had a civil case pending at the timeshe served as a juror in the Appellants cases.J(), )7), lJܶ)<)Wܶ$*Under the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. 222103, a party is entitled toI%challenge for cause any potential juror who has a suit pending for trial at thesame term of court.)W)ܶ))ܶ$@In this case, the trial began on August 30, 1993 and concluded onSeptember 11, 1993. According to the documentary evidence, a suit styled$Thomas Smithson v. Larry G. Little and wife Deanna L. Little was filed against Ms.Little and her husband on September 7, 1993. At the time she was selected as aKKjuror the case had not even been filed. Thus, she did not, at the time of herpselection as a juror, have a suit pending  for trial at the same term of court, sinceshe had not even been served with process at the time of her selection. Thisissue is patently without merit.)*ܶ**ܶ$UIn the final issue, the Appellants contend the trial judge erred by orderingpartial consecutive service of their sentences.**ܶ*+ܶ$Under Tenn. Code Ann.  4035115(b)(4), the trial judge can impose@consecutive sentences upon a defendant who is found to be, inter alia, aUUdangerous offender whose behavior exhibits little or no regard for human life andno hesitation about committing a crime in which the risk to human life is high.++sܶJ +s+ +s7+ lJܶ$t]In this case, after killing Ms. Besson, the Appellants continued their viciousattacks upon Mr. Simmons, with a knife and with their shotguns. Steve Anglinhad three prior convictions of assault and battery, having been charged withaggravated assault in 1985, 1987 and 1989. The first two convictions resulted inv'the payment of fines and costs. The final conviction resulted in probation foreleven months and twentynine days. Steve Anglin had just completed hisUprobation a few months before these offenses occurred. Billy Anglin had prior3convictions for public intoxication, concealing stolen property, burglary in the firstdegree and driving under the influence of an intoxicant. In our view, the key to theFimposition of partial consecutive sentences was the viciousness of the attack on%Mr. Simmons just moments after the shooting of Ms. Besson as she lay dying onthe ground nearby. If there ever were any defendants whose behavior exhibited$ little or no regard for human life, these Appellants are the ones. These issueshave no merit.+-ܶ--3ܶ$Finding no merit to any of the issues presented by the Appellants, theconvictions and the resulting sentences are affirmed.-3-iܶ-i-ܶ--ܶ$--' '$ܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷ$$$$$$-' '_________________________________J-- -*- lJܶ$$$$$$JERRY SCOTT, SPECIAL JUDGE--ܶ-.ܶ..ܶ..ܶ..,ܶ.,.:ܶCONCUR:.:.Hܶ.H.Vܶ .V.dܶ    ͷ .d.rܶ .r.ܶ(NOT PARTICIPATING)___________$ ..' '$ܶJOE B. JONES, JUDGE #{WP}11  4    00 "Hs0.'  '" {WP}10 <<KK   HelveticaHHs06 $  4  Judge Jones, the Presiding Judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, died a short time'  '33before the date the opinion in this case was to be released. The members of this panel of the CourtPremember Judge Jones fondly and appreciate the opportunity we had to work with him on this caseand numerous others. He is missed by all of his colleagues and former colleagues on the Court.0֭0 ...' '0ܶ..ܶ..ܶ..ܶ..ܶ______________________________..ܶPAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE$..' '$ܶ      ͷ