ÿWPC¾v @ºw¬,+nàa­=ýîÉ}Yé9á9#sØWÀ›åÝOWö÷KÐ4ÿÜ·‚²¨[ÿØ“\Dü lõÛ~,•åç\ãñàYÞYCº'·š V%³M©ˆCç¼¹Õ팅n¹:룄Ãúàc>é¦Ün>Ñä•C#F×Ä,-‚ÓuÚû¬TJɉôÁðj ÚT¾ÆP9-bÕ~€À| gÆô:Âx4f]‚7£DÄ%ÈµŽ³ÿ—„Bw’ÂR§æµ˜±ôË/©Öò<¹tLèm‹šgŽm^.ËÒs‡:Ô ‘ëGäÈm°öÅÐìyÖ6)\xN)lÿn,$ŠcŽd®Òì¡I¤ºÌqò‡_Lzu»¤ðãò¦µ„•P˜@›É6Ú’\Ó¹0*ÌÙJt:Ç+¿ÄŽÕ7ÉÎKOmìÚRŸ¼¿|Ü˵H¨Jk6 0v@6 0`¶6 0`7 0`v7 0`Ö7 0`68 08–8 0ÒÎ8 02 9fÒ9 0ü8: 0:4; 0Yn; 0_Ç; 0 &< 0j0= 0„š> B*@ D/H@ 0„w@ D/ûA 0Î*B 06øB 0.C 0ë6D 0:!E 0^[E 0<¹E BõEU6F 0¤HF D5ìF D-!G 0KNGU>™G AS×GÆ*H 0¤ðH 0D”I A«ØIU*ƒJf­JþKfOm wOU@äo $pž*pFÈpUDsfRsU,¸sU,äsftfvtfÜtU:BuBuf|u|u|u|uU@âuâuUN"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v"v 0Npv˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0»(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularN£$*â  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptOo”) œk18ƒ¢3|x&ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 \Ñ\R3Ø' Letter\Ñ ƒÝ ƒR°$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€X5¤X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô1hòXX5¤ÔÔ‡nô3 òòô1hÔà ` àÔ#†ô1hò ònô3#ÔÔ€xô› òòô1hÔWe€commend€the€trial€court€for€instructing€the€jury€in€this€manner,€even€though€it€failed€to€completelyÐ ° Ðcharge€the€lesser„included€offenses€for€felony€murder.€€Although€charging€each€count€of€the€indictment€individually€withÐ tÄ Ðeach€of€its€lesser„included€offenses€may€result€in€duplicate€charges€and€much€longer€jury€instructions,€this€method€ofÐ 8ˆ Ðcharging€should€result€in€less€confusion€for€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Franklin€Howardóó,€No.€W1997„00047„SC„R11„CD,€slipÐ üL Ðop.€at€3€n.4€(Tenn.,€Jackson,€July€6,€2000).Ô#†xXvÎX òxô›~#Ô \Ñ\R3Ø' Letter\Ñ2J+M ÿÿ0_level1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2G+M ÿÿ0_level2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2D+M ÿÿ0_level3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2A+M ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó ’Ý ƒR°$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€X5¤X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ô1hòXX5¤Ôà ` àÔ‡nô3 òòô1hÔÔ#†ô1hò ònô3©#ÔÔ€xô› òòô1hÔOur€discussion€of€the€issues€in€this€opinion€is€in€a€different€order€than€their€presentation€in€the€parties'Ð ° Ðbriefs. Ñ\R3Ø' Letter\ÑÑ#€Xÿÿd#Ñ2>+M ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+M ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+M ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25+M ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22+M ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levsl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levsl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DM ÿÿ0_levsl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levsl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>M ÿÿ0_levsl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levsl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó VÝ ƒR°$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X5¤X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ô1hòXX5¤Ôà ` àÔ€xô› òòô1hÔWe€have€combined€several€of€the€defendantððs€issues€into€a€single€sufficiency€issue€which€covers€allÐ ° Ðof€his€convictions.28M ÿÿ0_levsl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levsl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levsl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-2DM ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>M ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28M ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°Ôó óÔ  ÔÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó \Ñ\R3Ø' Letter\Ñ,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡W<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡\ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡W<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔó óÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡\ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡W<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡\ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€L(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡b%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡\ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ&ÿÿ  d dK)1dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€N(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡b%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡\ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔK)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡W<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡\ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡W<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡\ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ(|G2°$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^D»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X:tX»»Ô4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô d<þ6X9`(‹Courier New(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^D»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó óô\  `‹&Times New Roman^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^D»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK%ä2¼A`‹Arial \Ñ\R3Ø' Letter\Ñ ôÝ ƒR°$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€X5¤X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€nXÆ`XXX5¤ÔÔ€nô3 òXnXÆ`Ôà ` àÔ€xô› ò ònô3ÔUnder€this€view€the€imperative€for€the€lesser„included€offense€jury€instructions€is€merely€statutory.€Ð ° ÐSection€40„18„110(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€provides,€ð ðIt€is€the€duty€of€all€judges€charging€juries€in€casesÐ tÄ Ðof€criminal€prosecutions€for€any€felony€wherein€two€(2)€or€more€grades€or€classes€of€offense€may€be€included€in€theÐ 8ˆ Ðindictment,€to€charge€the€jury€as€to€all€of€the€law€of€each€offense€included€in€the€indictment,€without€any€request€on€theÐ üL Ðpart€of€the€defendant€to€do€so.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110(a)€(1997).€€This€statute€was€first€enacted€by€the€TennesseeÐ À ÐGeneral€Assembly€of€1877.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòGood€v.€Stateóó,€69€Tenn.€293,€294€(1878). \Ñ\R3Ø' Letter\Ñ c Ý ƒR°$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€X5¤X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ô1hòXX5¤ÔÔ€xô› òòô1hÔSince€òòWilliamsóó,€five€approaches€to€harmfulness€have€emerged.Ð ° ÐÌà  àFirst,€the€error€is€harmless€regardless€whether€the€failure€to€instruct€is€scrutinized€under€the€ð ðharmless€beyondÐ 8ˆ Ða€reasonable€doubtðð€standard€or€under€the€nonconstitutional€standard€Ô€ô1hò òxô›Ôof€affirmatively€appearing€to€have€affected€theÐ üL Ðresult€of€the€trial€or€involving€a€substantial€right€which€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð È ÐRobert€Raineyóó,€No.€W1999„00692„CCA„R3„CD,€slip€op.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Apr.€25,€2000),€òòperm.€app.Ð à Ðfiledóó€(Tenn.€June€13,€2000)€(ð ðAccordingly,€we€hold€that€the€failure€to€charge€the€jury€on€reckless€endangerment€wasÐ X ¨ Ðharmless,€whether€viewed€under€Rule€36(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€Rule€52(a)€of€the€TennesseeÐ  p ÐRules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€or€under€the€constitutional€standard€of€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð);€òòState€v.€JerryÐ è 8 ÐWayman€Travisóó,€W1999„01089„CCA„R3„CO,€slip€op.€at€7,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Mar.€10,€2000)€(cannot€classifyÐ °   Ðerror€as€harmless€under€either€constitutional€or€statutory€standard);€òòState€v.€Khanh€V.€Leóó,€No.Ð x È  ÐW1998-00637-CCA-R3-CD,€slip€op.€at€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Mar.€9,€2000),€òòperm.€app.€filedóó€(Tenn.€Apr.€13,Ð @   Ð2000)€(Woodall,€J.,€concurring€in€part€and€dissenting€in€part);€òòState€v.€Corey€Lamar€Campbellóó,€No.€01C01„9805„CR„Ð X  Ð00215,€slip€op.€at€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept.€9,€1999).Ð Ð  ÐÌÔ‡mô3 òòô1hÔà  àÔ#†ô1hò òmô3“#ÔÔ€zô› òòô1hÔSecond,€the€standard€for€assessing€harmfulness€is€not€discussed.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tambora€N.€Simmonsóó,€No.Ð `°  Ð03C01-9905-CR-00188,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Feb.€16,€2000)€(ð ðAccordingly,€the€failure€to€instructÐ $t  Ðon€simple€possession,€if€found€to€be€error,€would€be€harmless.ðð);€òòÔ€ô1hò òzô›ÔBobby€Kenneth€Nash€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ð è8  Ð01C01-9810-CR-00423,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Jan.€27,€2000)€(òòperóó€òòcuriamóó€order€denyingÐ ´ Ðrehearing),òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€June€5,€2000);€òòState€v.€James€Tyrone€Harbisonóó,€€No.€03C01-9808-CR-00271,€slipÐ |Ì Ðop.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Oct.€6,€1999),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€April€10,€2000);Ô‡mô3 òòô1hÔ€Ô#†ô1hò òmô35 #ÔòòState€v.€Antonio€M.Ð D” ÐKendrickóó,€No.€02C01-9708-CR-00319,€slip€op.€at€2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Aug.€6,€1999)€òòperm.€app.€grantedóóÐ  \ Ð(Tenn.€Feb.€7,€2000);Ô‡mô3 òòô1hÔ€òòÔ#†ô1hò òmô3C #ÔÔ€zô› òòô1hÔState€v.€Eric€Ô_ÔFlemmingÔ_ÔóóÔ‡mô3 ò òzô›Ô,€Ô#†zô› ò òmô3á #ÔNo.€01C01„9709„CR„00418,€slip€op.€at€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,Ð Ô$ ÐJan.€20,€1999)òòóó,€òòaffððdóó€19€S.W.3d€195€(Tenn.€2000).Ð  ð ÐÌà  àThird,€both€standards€for€determining€harmless€error€are€stated.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Roger€Dale€Bennettóó,€No.€01C01„Ð (x Ð9607„CC„00139,€slip€op.€at€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Dec.€31,€1998),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€May€13,€1999)Ð ì< Ð(reversal€is€required€only€if€error€affirmatively€appears€to€have€affected€trial€result;€in€this€case€error€harmless€beyondÐ ° Ða€reasonable€doubt).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àFourth,€the€erroneous€failure€to€instruct€is€reviewed€to€determine€if€the€error€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÐ üL Ðdoubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jumbo€Kurióó,€No.€M1999„00638„CCA„R3„CD,€slip€op.€at€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€May€25,Ð À Ð2000)€(ð ð[W]e€conclude€that€the€general€rule€is€that€the€erroneous€failure€to€instruct€on€a€lesser„included€offense€isÐ „Ô  Ðreversible€error€unless€it€is€shown€to€be€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð);€òòState€v.€Vincent€C.€Simsóó,€No.Ð H˜! ÐW1998-00634-CCA-R3-DD,€slip€op.€at€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Mar.€14,€2000)€(ð ðAccordingly,€under€òòWilliamóós,Ð  \" Ðany€error€in€declining€to€give€instructions€on€voluntary€manslaughter€and€criminally€negligent€homicide€would€beÐ Ð # Ðharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð);€òòState€v.€Curtis€J.€Elyóó,€No.€03C01„9806„CC„00215,€slip€op.€at€10€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ” ä$ ÐApp.,€Knoxville,€Nov.€4,€1999)€(Wade,€J.,€dissenting),€òòperm.€app.€grantedóó€(Tenn.€May€22,€2000)€(error€was€not€harmlessÐ X!¨% Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt;€burden€on€state€to€assure€no€impermissible€invasion€of€juryððs€role);€òòState€v.€Terry€Proffittóó;Ð "l& ÐNo.€03C01-9712-CC-00530,€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Jun.€2,€1999);€òòState€v.€Raymond€Haleóó;€No.Ð à"0'  Ð01C01-9712-CR-00564,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€May€6,€1999);€òòState€v.€Charles€D.€Mullinsóó,€No.Ð ° Ð01C01-9709-CC-00388,€slip€op.€at€13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Apr.€21,€1999).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€fifth€approach€is€that€entitlement€to€a€lesser„included€instruction€is€only€a€statutory€right,€and€error€will€notÐ üL Ðresult€in€reversal€unless€it€affirmatively€appears€to€have€affected€the€result.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Antonio€Smithóó,No..€W1999„Ð À Ð01096„CCA„R3„CD,€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Apr.€20,€2000);€òòState€v.€Harvey€Phillip€Hesteróó,€No.Ð „Ô Ð03C01„9704„CR„00144,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Mar.€22,€2000)òòóó;€òòState€v.€Khanh€V.€Leóó,€No.Ð H ˜ ÐW1998-00637-CCA-R3-CD,€slip€op.€at€17€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Mar.€9,€2000),€òòperm.€app.€filedóó€(Tenn.€Apr.€13,Ð  \ Ð2000)€(ð ð[W]e€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€error€affirmatively€appears€to€have€affected€the€result€of€the€trial€onÐ Ð  Ðthe€merits.ðð);€òòState€v.€Gary€Lee€Milleróó,€No.€M1998„00788„CCA„R3„CD,€slip€op.€at€15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,Ð ” ä  ÐMar.€6,€2000)€(Woodall,€J.,€concurring);€òòState€v.€Byron€M.€Edwardsóó,€No.€03C01„9812„CC„00436,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.Ð X ¨  ÐCrim.€App,€Knoxville,€Feb.€2,€2000);€òòState€v.€Timothy€M.€Reynoldsóó,€Nos.€01C01„9809„CC„00365,€M1998„00059„CCA„Ð  l  ÐR3„CD,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Jan.€7,€2000);€òòState€v.€Lawrence€J.€Perreaultóó,€No.€M1998„00492„Ð à 0  ÐCCA„R3„CD,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Dec.€17,€1999);€€òòState€v.€Michael€Jason€Powersóó,€No.€M1998„Ð ¤ô  Ð00264„CCA„RD„CD,€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Dec.€7,€1999);€òòState€v.€Curtis€J.€Elyóó,€No.€03C01„9806„Ð h¸  ÐCC„00215,€slip€op.€at€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Nov.€4,€1999)€(Welles,€J.,€concurring),€òòperm.€app.€grantedóó€(Tenn.Ð ,|  ÐMay€22,€2000);€òòState€v.€Guy€William€Rushóó,€No.€03C01„9805„CR„00193,€slip€op.€at€9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Knoxville,€Oct.Ð ð@  Ð13,€1999),€òòperm.€app.€grantedóó€(Tenn.€Apr.€24,€2000);€òòState€v.€Leslie€R.€Holtóó,€No.€01C01„9804„CR„00188,€slip€op.€at€2Ð ´  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Nashville,€Mar.€11,€1999);€òòState€v.€Brandon€R.€Patrickóó,€No.€03C01„9712„CC„00548,€slip€op.€at€3Ð xÈ  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Feb.€19,€1999);€òòState€v.€Roger€Dale€Bennettóó,€No.€01C01„9607„CC„00139,€slip€op.€at€10Ð <Œ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Dec.€31,€1998)€(Wade€J.,€concurring),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€May€13,€1999Ô#†zXvÎX òzô›Š#ÔÔ€zô› òXzXvÎÔ).(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman H LayneCiraoloRoodeBoaneChuckyMinickCaksackkarMinnick <Ý ƒR°$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€X5¤X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ô1hòXX5¤Ôà ` àÔ‡gô1hòòô1hÔRegarding€the€first€count€of€the€indictment,€the€trial€judge€dismissed€the€first€degree€murder€chargeÐ ° Ðbut€submitted€that€count€to€the€jury€on€second€degree€murder,€reckless€homicide,€and€criminally€negligent€homicide.€Ð xÈ ÐThe€jury€then€convicted€the€defendant€of€reckless€homicide€on€the€first€count.Ô#†ô1hòògô1h©#Ô1rãZ‹,Bookman Old Style  \Ñ\R3Ø' Letter\Ñ,O²ÀAZ‹Arial , ± AZArial  \Ñ\R3Ø' Letter\Ñ \Ñ\R3Ø' Letter\Ñ \Ñ\R3Ø' Letter\ÑAZ"Arial Regular \Ñ\R3Ø' Letter\Ñ(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (ÀÊO Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Jô»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÓ'°,X°` ˜X°œX'ÓÔ% €h ÔÔ€X5¤X»»ÔÑ€e³/#ÑÑ€³/-ÑÑ€C³/2ÑÑ€c³/4ÑÑ€³/7ÑÑ€p³/ÑÑ€Ô:ÑÑ€q³/$ÑÑ€l³/8ÑÑ€t³/;ÑÑ€o³/.Ñà@Y Y ìàò òÔ€xXvÎXXX5¤ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk%ìàAT€JACKSONó óˆÐ œì ÐÌò òÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€JASON€THOMAS€Ô_ÔBEELERÔ_Ôó óÐ tÄ ÐÓUÓÌà@™ ™ ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔObionÔ_Ô€CountyˆÐ L œ Ðà@S S ìàNo.€7„588€€€William€B.€Ô_ÔAcreeÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JudgeˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<û ` A߈Ð ü L  ÐÌà@¿ ¿ ìàNo.€W1999„01417„CCA„R3„CD€„€Decided€November€22,€2000ˆÐ ÷ G  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Î` AßÐ Ï  Ðó óÌThe€defendant€appeals€from€jury€trial€convictions€for€reckless€homicide,€felony€murder,€aggravatedÐ Ê  Ðburglary,€and€two€counts€of€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô.€€In€this€appeal,€the€defendant€allegesÐ ¶  Ðinsufficient€evidence,€errors€in€admitting€certain€evidence,€prosecutorial€misconduct,€improperÐ ¢ò  Ðinstructions,€and€error€in€denying€his€writ€of€òòerror€coram€Ô_ÔnobisÔ_Ôóó.€€Concluding€that€it€was€reversibleÐ ŽÞ Ðerror€to€not€instruct€on€the€lesser„included€offenses€of€felony€murder,€we€remand€for€a€new€trial€onÐ zÊ Ðthe€felony€murder€count.€€We€affirm€the€remaining€convictions.Ð f¶ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmed€in€Part,Ð >Ž ÐReversed€in€Part,€and€Remanded€for€a€New€Trial€for€Indictment€for€Felony€MurderÐ *z Ðó óÓÚÓÌòòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.,€óódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€and€òòÐ R ÐRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð î> ÐÌCharles€S.€Kelly,€Sr.,€Ô_ÔDyersburgÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€and€L.€Lee€Ô_ÔHarrellÔ_Ô,€Trenton,€Tennessee,€for€theÐ Æ Ðappellant,€Jason€Thomas€Ô_ÔBeelerÔ_Ô.Ð ² ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter,€Mark€E.€Davidson,€Assistant€Attorney€General,Ð ŠÚ ÐThomas€A.€Thomas,€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð v Æ  ÐÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ N"ž" ÐÌÓ ÓÓ  ÓÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant,€Jason€Thomas€Ô_ÔBeelerÔ_Ô,€appeals€from€his€Ô_ÔObionÔ_Ô€County€Circuit€CourtÐ &$v$ Ðconvictions€of€reckless€homicide,€a€Class€D€felony;€first€degree€felony€murder,€a€Class€A€felony;Ð %b % Ðaggravated€burglary,€a€Class€C€felony;€and€two€counts€of€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô,€ClassÐ þ%N!& ÐA€felonies.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„215€(1997)€(reckless€homicide);€ðð€39„13„202€(1997)Ð ê&:"' Ð(felony€murder);€ðð€39„14„403€(1997)€(aggravated€burglary);€ðð€39„13„305€(1997)€(especiallyÐ Ö'&#( Ðaggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô).€€After€being€convicted€by€a€jury,€the€defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€RangeÐ Â($) ÐI€standard€offender€to€two€years€for€the€reckless€homicide,€life€for€the€first€degree€murder,€three€yearsÐ ®)þ$* Ðfor€the€aggravated€burglary,€and€20€years€for€each€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô.€€The€recklessÐ š*ê%+ Ðhomicide€conviction€was€merged€into€the€first€degree€murder€conviction.€€The€sentences€were€to€beÐ †+Ö&, Ðserved€concurrently€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€In€this€appeal,€the€defendant€makes€theÐ r,Â'- Ðfollowing€allegations:Ð ^-®(.ý ÐÔ_ÔÓ ÓÓ* °,X›X°,X°` ˜X*ÓÓ  Óà0  à1.€The€evidence€was€not€sufficient,׃(×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×а(#(# Ðà0  à2.€The€trial€court€erred€in€denying€a€motion€of€acquittal€after€hearing€testimony€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendant€was€not€capable€of€forming€the€requisite€intent,ÐtÄ(#(# Ðà0  à3.€The€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€testimony€that€the€defendant€chose€not€to€make€aÐ L œ Ðstatement€when€he€was€booked,Ð8 ˆ(#(# Ðà0  à4.€The€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€evidence€of€prior€bad€acts,Ð `(#(# Ðà0  à5.€The€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€prior€felony€conviction,Ðè 8 (#(# Ðà0  à6.€The€testimony€of€one€witness€was€offered€solely€to€arouse€passion€and€sympathy€in€theÐ À  Ðjury,Ьü (#(# Ðà0  à7.€The€trial€court€erred€by€not€admitting€a€statement€he€made€to€his€father,Ð„Ô (#(# Ðà0  à8.€The€trial€court€erred€by€not€admitting€a€statement€made€by€his€wife€to€the€police,Ð\¬(#(# Ðà0  à9.€The€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€testimony€of€Dr.€Deering,€the€medical€examiner,Ð4„(#(# Ðà0  à10.€The€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€testimony€from€the€stateððs€psychologist€regardingÐ  \ Ðstatements€the€defendant€made€during€the€evaluation,ÐøH(#(# Ðà0  à11.€The€state€committed€prosecutorial€misconduct€in€its€closing€argument,ÐÐ (#(# Ðà0  à12.€The€trial€court€erred€by€not€instructing€the€jury€on€lesser„included€offenses€for€felonyÐ ¨ø Ðmurder,Дä(#(# Ðà0  à13.€The€trial€erred€by€not€giving€a€special€instruction€on€diminished€capacity,Ðl¼(#(# Ðà0  à14.€The€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€give€a€proper€instruction€regarding€mental€disease€orÐ D!” Ðdefect,Ð0"€ (#(# Ðà0  à15.€The€trial€court€erred€by€giving€the€jury€written€instructions€that€had€portions€crossed€out,Ð $X" Ðâ âandÐô$D #(#(# Ðà0  à16.€The€trial€court€erred€by€denying€the€petition€for€writ€of€òòerror€coram€nobisóó.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×а(#(# Ðâ âÓ.°,X°` ˜X°,X›X³.ÓFollowing€a€review€of€the€record€and€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€we€reverse€the€felony€murderÐ ˆØ Ðconviction€because€the€trial€court€failed€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€lesser„included€offenses,€and€weÐ tÄ Ðaffirm€the€remaining€convictions.Ð `° Ðà ` àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€at€trial€demonstrated€that€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendant€and€his€then„wife,€Jeanne€Beth,€were€having€marital€difficulties.€€The€turning€point€in€theirÐ $ t Ðrelationship€occurred€after€the€birthday€party€for€their€five„year„old€daughter€in€late€February€1998.€Ð  ` ÐBefore€the€end€of€that€month,€the€defendant€and€his€wife€separated€with€Jeanne€Beth€caring€for€theirÐ ü L  Ðdaughter.€€Ð è 8  Ðà ` àOn€Friday,€March€7,€Jeanne€Beth€and€her€daughter€were€staying€at€Jeanne€BethððsÐ À  Ðfatherððs€house.€€She€expected€her€father,€a€truck€driver,€to€return€late€that€night.€€Also€sharing€theÐ ¬ü  Ðhouse€that€night€were€Jamie€Boane,€the€homicide€victim,€and€Chucky€Minnick.€€These€two€menÐ ˜è  Ðworked€for€Jeanne€Bethððs€father€and€roomed€in€his€house.Ð „Ô  ÐÓÝÓÓ  Óà ` àThroughout€that€Friday€evening,€the€defendant€called€Jeanne€Beth€on€the€telephone.€Ð \¬ ÐThe€defendant€asked€to€speak€with€his€daughter€on€the€first€call.€€He€also€spoke€with€his€wife,€duringÐ H˜ Ðthat€call€and€later€ones,€about€their€getting€back€together.€€He€told€her€that€life€was€not€worth€livingÐ 4„ Ðwithout€her.€€After€one€of€those€calls,€Jeanne€Beth€called€the€defendantððs€mother€and€told€her€thatÐ  p Ðthe€defendant€had€threatened€suicide.€€During€the€defendantððs€last€telephone€call€to€Jeanne€Beth,€heÐ  \ Ðtold€her€that€if€she€did€not€hear€from€him€in€ten€minutes,€it€would€be€because€he€had€killed€himself.Ð øH Ðà ` àAfter€making€the€last€call,€the€defendant€drove€to€Jeanne€Bethððs€fatherððs€house.€€HeÐ Ð  Ðparked€off€to€one€side€of€the€house.€€Carrying€a€pump€action€shotgun,€he€walked€to€the€front€of€theÐ ¼  Ðhouse,€stood€on€a€plastic€bucket€and€peered€into€a€bedroom€window.€€He€saw€someone€sleeping€inÐ ¨ø Ðthe€bed.€€He€continued€walking€around€the€house€until€he€came€to€the€back€door.€€Ð ”ä Ðà ` àInside€the€house,€Jeanne€Beth€and€Jamie€Boane€were€in€the€kitchen.€€Jeanne€Beth€sawÐ l¼ Ða€shadow€through€the€backdoor€€window,€and€Boane€went€to€the€door.€€As€Boane€reached€for€theÐ X ¨ Ðdoor€knob,€the€defendant€shot€through€the€lock€to€open€the€door,€striking€Boane€in€the€left€hand.€Ð D!” ÐWith€his€other€hand,€Boane€pushed€Jeanne€Beth,€who€had€come€up€behind€him,€back€and€away€fromÐ 0"€  Ðthe€door.€€A€second€shotgun€blast€through€the€backdoor€window€struck€Boane€in€the€left€side€of€hisÐ #l! Ðneck.€€He€fell€to€the€floor€and€cried€out,€ð ðIððm€dying.ððÐ $X" Ðà ` àJeanne€Beth€ran€from€the€kitchen€into€the€room€where€Chucky€Minnick€was€sleepingÐ à%0!$ Ðand€then€into€her€fatherððs€bedroom€where€her€daughter€was€sleeping.€€Minnick€woke€up€when€heÐ Ì&"% Ðheard€the€shots,€and€after€Jeanne€Beth€ran€through€the€room€yelling€that€Boane€had€been€shot,€he€hidÐ ¸'#& Ðin€the€closet.€€When€Jeanne€Beth€entered€the€bedroom€she€locked€the€door€behind€her.€€MomentsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðlater,€the€defendant€kicked€down€the€bedroom€door€and€Jeanne€Beth€jumped€on€her€daughter€to€coverÐ ° Ðand€protect€her.€€Still€carrying€the€shotgun,€the€defendant€told€Jeanne€Beth€to€come€with€him€andÐ œì Ðbring€his€daughter.€€He€escorted€them€to€his€parked€car,€and€he€drove€them€away.Ð ˆØ Ðà ` àAfter€hearing€the€defendant€leave,€Minnick€left€the€closet€and€saw€Jamie€Boane,€whoÐ `° Ðhad€crawled€from€the€kitchen€to€the€living€room.€€Minnick€tried€to€use€the€telephone€to€call€for€help,Ð L œ Ðbut€the€line€was€dead.€€He€then€drove€to€the€victimððs€motherððs€house,€where€they€called€the€sheriffÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€an€ambulance.Ð $ t ÐÓ¿ ÓÓ  Óà ` àDuring€this€time,€the€defendantððs€family€was€searching€for€him.€€Remembering€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€defendant€had€his€wifeððs€cellular€telephone,€the€defendantððs€father€called€the€defendant,€who€wasÐ è 8  Ðdriving€around€with€Jeanne€Beth€and€his€daughter.€€He€told€his€father,€ð ðSomebody€told€me€that€I€shotÐ Ô$  Ðsomebody.ðð€€The€defendant€agreed€to€meet€his€father€in€a€field€near€his€grandparentsðð€home.€€WhenÐ À  Ðthe€defendantððs€parents€got€to€the€field,€they€found€the€defendant€and€his€wife€outside€the€car.€€€TheÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendantððs€daughter€was€in€the€backseat€of€the€car,€and€the€shotgun€was€still€in€the€car.€€TheÐ ˜è  Ðdefendantððs€father€took€the€child€to€his€house,€and€the€defendantððs€mother€stayed€with€the€defendantÐ „Ô  Ðand€his€wife.€€The€three€walked€to€the€defendantððs€grandparentsðð€home,€where€the€defendant€finallyÐ pÀ Ðgave€himself€up€to€the€police.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àThe€defendant€was€indicted€and€charged€with€one€count€of€first„degree€premeditatedÐ 4„ Ðmurder,€one€count€of€murder€in€the€perpetration€of€burglary,€one€count€of€aggravated€burglary,€andÐ  p Ðtwo€counts€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.€€At€the€conclusion€of€€the€proof€at€trial,€the€trialÐ  \ Ðcourt€granted€a€judgment€of€acquittal€only€on€the€charge€of€first„degree€premeditated€murder;€on€thatÐ øH Ðcount€of€the€indictment€the€trial€court€submitted€to€the€jury€the€charge€of€second„degree€murder€andÐ ä4 Ðthe€lesser„included€offenses€of€voluntary€manslaughter,€reckless€homicide,€and€criminally€negligentÐ Ð  Ðhomicide.€€The€jury€returned€a€verdict€finding€the€defendant€guilty€of€reckless€homicide,€felonyÐ ¼  Ðmurder,€aggravated€burglary,€and€the€two€counts€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.Ð ¨ø ÐÓÒ,ÓÓ  ÓòòI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceóóÐ €Ð ÐÓ«4ÓÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€When€anÐ X ¨ Ðaccused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€courtððs€standard€of€review€isÐ D!” Ðwhether,€after€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rationalÐ 0"€  Ðtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJacksonÐ #l! Ðv.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€324,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2791„92€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67Ð $X" Ð(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€applies€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€directÐ ô$D # Ðevidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.Ð à%0!$ ÐDykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).òòóóÐ Ì&"% Ðà ` àMoreover,€a€criminal€offense€may€be€established€exclusively€by€circumstantialÐ ¤(ô#' Ðevidence.€òòDuchac€v.€Stateóó,€505€S.W.2d€237€(Tenn.€1973);€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€901€S.W.2d€393,€396Ð )à$( Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Bolingóó,€840€S.W.2d€944,€947€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);òòóó€òòState€v.Ð |*Ì%) ÐLequireóó,€634€S.W.2d€608€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€However,€before€an€accused€may€be€convictedÐ h+¸&* Ðof€a€criminal€offense€based€upon€circumstantial€evidence€alone,€the€facts€and€circumstances€"mustÐ ° Ðbe€so€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€every€other€reasonable€hypothesis€save€the€guilt€of€theÐ œì Ðdefendant."€òòóó€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€225€Tenn.€478,€470€S.W.2d€610€(1971);€òòJonesóó,€901€S.W.2d€at€396.€Ð ˆØ ÐIn€other€words,€"[a]€web€of€guilt€must€be€woven€around€the€defendant€from€which€he€cannot€escapeÐ tÄ Ðand€from€which€facts€and€circumstances€the€jury€could€draw€no€other€reasonable€inference€save€theÐ `° Ðguilt€of€the€defendant€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòCrawfordóó,€470€S.W.2d€at€613;€òòState€v.€McAfeeóó,Ð L œ Ð737€S.W.2d€304,€305€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).òòóóÐ 8 ˆ Ðà ` àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€should€not€reweigh€orÐ  ` Ðreevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€Ð ü L  ÐQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€wellÐ è 8  Ðas€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571Ð Ô$  ÐS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theÐ À  Ðtrier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956);€Ð ¬ü  ÐòòFarmer€v.€Stateóó,€574€S.W.2d€49,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€On€the€contrary,€this€court€must€affordÐ ˜è  Ðthe€State€of€Tennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€as€wellÐ „Ô  Ðas€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€at€835.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àThe€defendant€was€convicted€of€felony€murder,€which€depended€upon€the€underlyingÐ 4„ Ðfelony€of€aggravated€burglary.€€He€was€convicted€of€aggravated€burglary,€which€relied€upon€theÐ  p Ðunderlying€felony€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.€€Accordingly,€the€defendantððs€felony€murderÐ  \ Ðconviction€is€ultimately€predicated€upon€the€defendant€committing€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.Ð øH ÐÓ5Óòòa.€Especially€Aggravated€KidnappingóóÐ Ð  ÐÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€his€convictionsÐ ¨ø Ðfor€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€of€his€wife€and€child.€€Especially€aggravated€kidnapping€isÐ ”ä Ðdefined€in€pertinent€part€as€false€imprisonment€accomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ €Ð ÐAnn.€ðð€39„13„302(a)(1)€(1997).€€False€imprisonment€can€be€committed€by€a€person€ð ðwho€knowinglyÐ l¼ Ðremoves€or€confines€another€unlawfully€so€as€to€interfere€substantially€with€the€other's€liberty.ðð€Ð X ¨ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„302(a)€(1997).€€Ð D!” Ðà ` àVisualizing€the€evidence€most€favorably€to€the€state,€we€conclude€that€the€evidenceÐ #l! Ðsufficiently€supports€the€defendant's€convictions€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€of€his€then„wifeÐ $X" Ðand€child.€€The€defendant,€after€shooting€his€way€into€the€house€and€fatally€wounding€Jamie€Boane,Ð ô$D # Ðkicked€down€the€door€where€his€wife€and€child€were€hiding.€€His€wifeððs€first€reaction€when€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendant€broke€down€the€door€was€to€protect€and€shield€her€five„year„old€daughter€by€covering€herÐ Ì&"% Ðwith€her€body.€€The€defendant,€with€shotgun€in€hand,€told€his€wife€that€he€was€going€to€kill€her.€Ð ¸'#& ÐApparently€changing€his€mind,€he€told€her€to€get€his€daughter€and€come€with€him.€€The€defendantððsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwife€testified€that€she€felt€threatened€because€the€defendant€had€the€shotgun,€and€it€was€pointed€atÐ )à$( Ðher.€€The€defendant€escorted€them€out€of€the€house,€into€his€car,€and€drove€away.€€These€facts€leadÐ |*Ì%) Ðus€to€the€inescapable€conclusion€that€a€jury€which€accredited€the€state's€proof€could€find€beyond€aÐ h+¸&* Ðreasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€committed€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€of€his€wife€andÐ ° Ðdaughter.Ð œì Ðà ` àThe€defendant€argues€that€it€was€legally€impossible€to€kidnap€his€wife€and€childÐ tÄ Ðbecause€he€was€not€yet€divorced,€there€was€no€protective€order€against€him,€and€as€father,€he€still€hadÐ `° Ðcustody€of€the€child.€€We€disagree.€€The€familial€status€of€the€victim€is€irrelevant€to€the€offense€ofÐ L œ Ðkidnapping.€€It€is€clear€that€a€non„custodial€parent€can€be€guilty€of€kidnapping€his€child.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ 8 ˆ Ðv.€Holtcampóó,€614€S.W.2d€389,€392€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€In€addition,€and€although€fortunatelyÐ $ t Ðnot€occurring€frequently,€there€are€reported€cases€of€kidnappings€involving€family€members€whereÐ  ` Ðthe€kidnapper€is€married€or€has€custody€of€the€child.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòKing€v.€Stateóó,€992€S.W.2d€946,€949„Ð ü L  Ð50,€956€(Tenn.€1999)€(previous€conviction€where€defendant€kidnapped€his€wife€used€as€aggravatingÐ è 8  Ðcircumstance);€òòState€v.€Herndonóó,€704€S.W.2d€728,€729€(Tenn.€Cr.€App.€1985)€(father,€who€wasÐ Ô$  Ðawarded€custody€of€child€in€Tennessee,€convicted€of€kidnapping€his€child€from€mother€in€Nevada).Ð À  Ðà ` àIn€òòKingóó,€for€instance,€our€supreme€court€affirmed€the€use€of€a€prior€kidnappingÐ ˜è  Ðconviction€as€an€aggravating€circumstance€supporting€the€defendantððs€sentence€of€death.€€òòKingóó,€992Ð „Ô  ÐS.W.2d€at€949„50.€€The€court€stated€that€the€ð ðmere€fact€that€the€victim€of€a€kidnapping€is€either€aÐ pÀ Ðspouse€or€a€former€spouse€does€not€decrease€the€magnitude€or€substance€and€persuasiveness€of€thatÐ \¬ Ðcrime.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€950.€Ð H˜ Ðà ` àConsequently,€we€conclude€that€in€this€case€the€familial€relationship€is€not€relevantÐ  p Ðconsidering€the€defendantððs€violence€in€gaining€entrance€to€where€his€wife€had€sought€security€forÐ  \ Ðherself€and€her€daughter€and€considering€his€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€to€ensure€compliance€with€hisÐ øH Ðwishes.Ð ä4 ÐÓBDÓÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€he€did€not€have€the€intent€to€remove€or€confine€theÐ ¼  Ðvictims€and€that€the€proof€showed€this€by€his€statement€to€his€wife€to€get€his€daughter€and€ð ðletððs€go.ðð€Ð ¨ø ÐHe€claims€that€this€shows€that€he€was€concerned€for€their€safety€and€wanted€to€get€them€away€fromÐ ”ä Ðthe€scene€of€the€shooting.€€Questions€concerning€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence€are€resolvedÐ €Ð Ðby€the€jury€and€not€by€this€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€Because€evidence€contradictoryÐ l¼ Ðto€the€defendantððs€position€was€introduced,€this€became€a€classic€jury€question.€€The€juryððsÐ X ¨ Ðdetermination€warrants€our€approbation.Ð D!” ÐÓˆTÓòòb.€Aggravated€BurglaryóóÐ #l! ÐÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€his€convictionÐ ô$D # Ðfor€aggravated€burglary.€€Aggravated€burglary€occurs€when€an€individual€enters€a€habitation€"withoutÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€effective€consent€of€the€property€owner"€and,€in€this€case,€commits€or€attempts€to€commit€aÐ Ì&"% Ðfelony,€theft€or€assault.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39-14-402(a)(3),€„403€(1997).Ð ¸'#& Ðà ` àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€proof€showed€that€the€defendant€used€a€shotgun€to€shoot€theÐ )à$( Ðlock€from€the€back€door€in€order€to€enter€the€house.€€His€wife€testified€that€she€had€no€intention€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðletting€him€in€the€house.€€The€house€was€the€usual€residence€of€three€others,€and€the€defendantððs€wifeÐ h+¸&* Ðwas€staying€there€for€the€night.€€The€defendant€entered€the€house€and€committed€especiallyÐ ° Ðaggravated€kidnapping.€€These€facts€provide€overwhelming€evidence€from€which€a€jury€could€findÐ œì Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€committed€aggravated€burglary.Ð ˆØ Ðà ` àThe€defendant€argues€that€he€did€not€have€the€intent€to€commit€a€crime€in€the€house,Ð `° Ðalthough€he€admits€to€breaking€into€the€house.€€One€statutory€definition€of€aggravated€burglaryÐ L œ Ðrequires€that€the€offender€enter€a€habitation€without€consent€but€with€the€intent€to€commit€a€felony,Ð 8 ˆ Ðtheft€or€assault.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„402(a)(1)€(1997).€€Another€definition€of€aggravatedÐ $ t Ðburglary€does€not€require€that€the€defendant€enter€with€intent€to€commit€a€crime€but€requires€only€Ð  ` Ðthat€the€defendant€enter€and€commit€or€attempt€to€commit€a€felony,€theft€or€assault.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ ü L  ÐAnn.€ðð€39„14„402(a)(3)€(1997).€€The€indictment€charged€the€defendant€with€committing€aggravatedÐ è 8  Ðburglary€under€this€second€definition,€and€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€on€aggravated€burglaryÐ Ô$  Ðunder€this€second€definition.€€The€evidence€showed€that€the€defendant€committed€a€felony€in€theÐ À  Ðhouse€after€entering€without€consent,€and€the€jury€convicted€the€defendant€accordingly.€€Thus,€theÐ ¬ü  Ðevidence€supports€a€conclusion€that€the€defendant€committed€aggravated€burglary.Ð ˜è  ÐÓòWÓòòc.€Felony€MurderóóÐ pÀ Ðò òó óÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€his€convictionÐ H˜ Ðfor€felony€murder€in€the€perpetration€of€a€burglary.€€The€statute€under€which€the€defendant€wasÐ 4„ Ðconvicted€defined€felony€murder€as€a€ð ðkilling€of€another€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€.€.€.€any€.Ð  p Ð.€.€burglary.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2)€(1997).€€Ð  \ Ðà ` àThe€proof€in€this€case€showed€that€Jamie€Boane€died€as€a€result€of€two€shotgunÐ ä4 Ðwounds,€one€to€the€hand€and€the€other€to€the€neck.€€The€defendant€admitted€to€firing€the€first€shotgunÐ Ð  Ðblast,€which€struck€the€victim€in€the€hand.€€There€was€proof€that€the€second€shotgun€blast€was€firedÐ ¼  Ðby€the€same€pump€action€shotgun.€€The€defendant€also€admitted€that€he€fired€the€first€shot€in€orderÐ ¨ø Ðto€open€the€locked€door€and€enter€the€house.€€Once€inside€the€house,€the€defendant€committedÐ ”ä Ðespecially€aggravated€kidnapping.€€These€facts€supply€abundant€evidence€from€which€a€jury€couldÐ €Ð Ðfind€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€committed€felony€murder.Ð l¼ Ðà ` àThe€defendant€argues€that€he€did€not€have€the€requisite€intent€to€support€the€felonyÐ D!” Ðmurder€conviction.€€He€points€to€òòState€v.€Buggsóó,€995€S.W.2d€102€(Tenn.€1999),€in€support€of€hisÐ 0"€  Ðargument.€€In€òòBuggsóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€ð ðin€a€felony-murder€case,€intent€to€commit€theÐ #l! Ðunderlying€felony€must€exist€prior€to€or€concurrent€with€the€commission€of€the€act€causing€the€deathÐ $X" Ðof€the€victim.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€107.€€Further,€the€court€held€that€intent€to€commit€the€underlying€felony€mayÐ ô$D # Ðnot€be€presumed€from€the€act€of€committing€that€felony.€€òòId.óó€€The€jury,€however,€may€still€ð ðinfer€fromÐ à%0!$ Ða€defendant's€actions€immediately€after€a€killing€that€the€defendant€had€the€intent€to€commit€theÐ Ì&"% Ðfelony€prior€to,€or€concurrent€with,€the€killing.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Ð ¸'#& Ðà ` àThe€proof€showed€that€the€victim€was€fatally€wounded€as€a€result€of€the€defendantÐ )à$( Ðshooting€at€the€back€door€in€an€attempt€to€open€it.€€After€entering€the€house€and€immediately€goingÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€where€his€wife€was€hiding,€the€defendant€told€her€that€he€was€going€to€kill€her.€€She€testified€thatÐ h+¸&* Ðhe€apparently€changed€his€mind,€and€he€escorted€her€and€the€child€to€his€car.€€After€driving€to€a€fieldÐ ° Ðand€meeting€his€parents,€the€defendant€wanted€his€mother€to€leave€so€that€he€and€his€wife€could€die.Ð œì Ðà ` àThe€defendantððs€conviction€for€felony€murder€in€perpetration€of€a€burglary€comportsÐ tÄ Ðcompletely€with€òòBuggsóó.€€Entering€the€house€is€one€element€of€burglary.€€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„Ð `° Ð402(a)€(1997).€€Another€element€is€committing€or€attempting€to€commit€a€felony,€theft€or€assault.€Ð L œ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„402(a)(3)€(1997).€€The€defendant€admitted€that€when€he€shot€at€the€door,Ð 8 ˆ Ðhe€intended€to€enter€the€house€and€kill€himself€in€front€of€his€wife.€€Although€killing€oneself€in€frontÐ $ t Ðof€another€is€not€a€felony,€the€defendantððs€actions€immediately€after€the€shooting€indicate€that€heÐ  ` Ðintended€more€than€just€committing€suicide.€€The€evidence€showed€that€as€soon€as€the€defendantÐ ü L  Ðentered€the€house,€he€promptly€went€to€where€his€wife€was€hiding,€threatened€her,€and€made€herÐ è 8  Ðleave€the€house€with€him.€€We€conclude€that€a€jury€could€reasonably€infer€from€the€defendantððsÐ Ô$  Ðactions€immediately€after€the€shooting€that€the€defendant€intended€to€kidnap€his€wife€and€child€whenÐ À  Ðhe€fatally€shot€the€victim.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÓ¼aÓòòd.€Reckless€HomicideóóÐ „Ô  ÐÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant€admits€in€his€appellate€brief€that€the€stateððs€proof€would€support€theÐ \¬ Ðreckless€homicide€conviction.€€Nonetheless,€he€argues€that€evidence€was€presented€that€negated€hisÐ H˜ Ðculpability€for€that€offense;€however,€he€admits€that€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ 4„ Ðstate€was€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction€for€reckless€homicide.€€To€reiterate,€questionsÐ  p Ðconcerning€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€jury€and€not€by€this€court.€€òòSeeóóÐ  \ ÐòòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€The€evidence€was€sufficient.€€We€discuss€the€defendantððs€argumentÐ øH Ðwith€respect€to€his€mental€state€in€the€next€section.Ð ä4 ÐÓÞqÓòòe.€Motion€for€Judgment€of€AcquittalÐ ¼  ÐÓ  Óà ` àóóThe€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€a€motion€for€judgment€ofÐ ”ä Ðacquittal€after€hearing€testimony€from€Dr.€Monet€that€the€defendant€was€not€capable€of€forming€theÐ €Ð Ðrequisite€intent.€€The€defendant€argues€that€with€this€testimony,€the€evidence€was€insufficient€toÐ l¼ Ðconvict€him€on€any€of€the€counts.Ð X ¨ Ðà ` àRule€29€of€the€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€empowers€the€trial€judge€to€direct€aÐ 0"€  Ðjudgment€of€acquittal€when€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€warrant€a€conviction€either€at€the€time€theÐ #l! Ðstate€rests€or€at€the€conclusion€of€all€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòóóTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€29(a);€€òòState€v.€Ballóó,€973Ð $X" ÐS.W.2d€288,€292€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€The€standard€by€which€a€trial€court€rules€upon€a€motionÐ ô$D # Ðfor€judgment€of€acquittal€is€essentially€the€same€standard€applied€on€appeal€in€determining€theÐ à%0!$ Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence€after€a€conviction.€€òòBallóó,€973€S.W.2d€at€292;€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€29(a).€Ð Ì&"% ÐWe€have€previously€determined€that€the€evidence,€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€wasÐ ¸'#& Ðsufficient€to€support€the€defendantððs€convictions.€€Because€a€judgment€of€acquittal€requires€that€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðevidence€be€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€motionÐ )à$( Ðfor€judgment€of€acquittal.Ð |*Ì%) Ðà ` àThe€defendant€places€too€much€weight€on€the€testimony€of€his€expert€and€ignores€theÐ ° Ðexistence€of€contradictory€evidence.€€Again,€questions€concerning€the€weight€and€value€of€theÐ œì Ðevidence€are€resolved€by€the€jury€and€not€by€this€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€TheÐ ˆØ Ðdefendant€presented€evidence,€through€Dr.€Monet,€that€he€was€incapable€of€forming€the€requisiteÐ tÄ Ðmental€intent€for€the€charged€offenses.€€The€state€presented€contradictory€evidence,€both€in€its€case„Ð `° Ðin„chief€and€in€rebuttal.€€It€was€the€juryððs€duty€to€resolve€the€issue€of€whether€the€defendant€wasÐ L œ Ðcapable€of€forming€the€requisite€mental€state€for€each€of€the€offenses.€€The€jury€obviously€accreditedÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€stateððs€witnesses€by€convicting€the€defendant.€€Ð $ t ÐÓVuÓòòÓ  ÓII.€Admissibility€of€EvidenceóóÐ ü L  ÐÓ-ÓÓ  Óà ` àThe€admission€of€evidence€is€generally€within€the€broad€discretion€of€the€trial€court;Ð Ô$  Ðabsent€an€abuse€of€that€discretion,€the€trial€court's€decision€will€not€be€reversed.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð À  ÐMcLeodóó,€937€S.W.2d€867,€871€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€66€(Tenn.€1992).€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÓ~Óòòa.€Evidence€that€Defendant€Chose€not€to€Make€a€StatementóóÐ „Ô  ÐÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€permitting€a€police€officer€toÐ \¬ Ðtestify€that€the€defendant€chose€not€to€make€a€statement€when€he€was€booked.€€The€state€concedesÐ H˜ Ðthat€the€testimony€was€improper€and€should€have€been€excluded.€€However,€the€state€argues€that€theÐ 4„ Ðerror€was€harmless.Ð  p Ðà ` àDuring€the€direct€examination€of€Jeff€Jackson,€a€Union€City€police€officer,€he€testifiedÐ øH Ðthat€he€spoke€with€the€defendant€when€he€was€being€booked.€€Officer€Jackson€said€that€he€advisedÐ ä4 Ðthe€defendant€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€by€reading€from€a€standard€form,€which€included€a€waiver€ofÐ Ð  Ðthose€rights.€€The€following€exchange€then€transpired:Ð ¼  ÐÓ3°,X°½` ˜X°,X°` ˜X3Óà8 ½ à[State]:€à0¸ ½!½!àAnd€when€you€read€this€to€Mr.€Beeler,€in€your€opinion€did€he€appearÐ ”ä Ðto€understand€it?Ѐи !¸ ! Ðà8 ½ à[Witness]:€à0¸ ½!½!àYes,€he€did.ÐX ¨¸ !¸ ! Ðà8 ½ à[State]:€à0¸ ½!½!àAnd€did€he€sign€the€form?Ð0"€ ¸ !¸ ! Ðà8 ½ à[Witness]:€à0¸ ½!½!àYes,€he€did.Ð$X"¸ !¸ ! Ðà8 ½ à[State]:€à0¸ ½!½!àDid€he€make€any€statement?Ðà%0!$¸ !¸ ! Ðà8 ½ à[Witness]:€à0¸ ½!½!àThe€only€thing€he€said€was€that€he€did€not€want€to€make€a€statement€atÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€time.Ф(ô#'¸ !¸ ! ÐÐ |*Ì%) ÐÓ7°,X°` ˜X°,X°½` ˜X¦„7Óà ` àBefore€this€testimony€was€admitted,€the€defendant€objected€on€the€grounds€that€it€wasÐ ° Ðprejudicial€and€that€the€defendant€had€the€right€to€not€make€a€statement.€€The€state€argued€that€theÐ œì Ðpurpose€of€this€testimony€was€to€show€that€the€defendant€understood€what€was€going€on€and€that€heÐ ˆØ Ðwas€coherent€shortly€after€the€shooting.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€objection.€€No€curativeÐ tÄ Ðinstruction€explaining€the€òòMirandaóó€rights€or€that€the€defendant€had€the€right€to€not€make€a€statementÐ `° Ðwas€requested€or€given.Ð L œ Ðà ` àOur€path€of€inquiry€is€well€worn.€€In€òòHarrison€v.€Stateóó,€€532€S.W.2d€566€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð $ t ÐApp.€1975),€this€court€held€that€it€was€improper€for€the€state€to€elicit€from€a€witness€testimony€thatÐ  ` Ðthe€defendant€refused€to€make€any€statement€after€being€advised€of€his€constitutional€rights.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóóÐ ü L  ÐòòState€v.€Kellyóó,€683€S.W.2d€1,€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984);€òòHart€v.€Stateóó,€592€S.W.2d€905,€906€(Tenn.Ð è 8  ÐCrim.€App.€1979).Ð Ô$  ÐÓ^ÓÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓ  ÓOf€course€it€was€improper€for€the€State€to€elicit€from€its€witness€that€the€defendantÐ ¬ü  Ðrefused€to€make€any€statement€after€being€advised€of€his€constitutionalÐ ˜è  Ðrights--including€the€right€to€remain€silent.€€Mays€v.€State€(Tenn.€Cr.€App.),€495Ð „Ô  ÐS.W.2d€833;€State€v.€Flanagan,€223€Tenn.€134,€443€S.W.2d€25.€€Manifestly,€it€isÐ pÀ Ðintolerable€to€penalize€an€accused€for€remaining€silent€or€refusing€to€make€aÐ \¬ Ðstatement€to€police€authorities€after€being€advised€of€his€constitutional€right€to€remainÐ H˜ Ðsilent€in€the€face€of€accusation.€€It€is€elementary€that€a€person€arrested€upon€a€chargeÐ 4„ Ðof€crime,€and€thus€accused€thereof,€has€an€absolute€and€inviolable€constitutional€rightÐ  p Ðunder€the€Fifth€Amendment,€applicable€to€the€states€by€operation€of€the€FourteenthÐ  \ ÐAmendment€(Malloy€v.€Hogan,€378€U.S.€1,€84€S.Ct.€1489,€12€L.Ed.2d€653),€toÐ øH Ðremain€silent.€€Indeed,€Miranda€mandates,€among€other€things,€that€an€accused€be€soÐ ä4 Ðadvised€before€interrogation€by€law€enforcement€officials.€€It€would€be€an€intolerableÐ Ð  Ðanomaly€if€an€accused's€exercise€of€his€constitutional€right€to€remain€silent,€of€whichÐ ¼  Ðhe€must€be€informed€before€any€questioning€by€law€enforcement€officials€concerningÐ ¨ø Ðthe€offense€for€which€he€was€arrested,€could€thus€be€turned€against€him.Ð ”ä ÐÓÍŒÓÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒòòHarrisonóó,€532€S.W.2d€at€570„72.€€The€trial€court€in€this€case€thereby€erred€in€allowing€OfficerÐ D!” ÐJackson€to€testify€that€the€defendant€refused€to€make€a€statement€after€being€advised€of€hisÐ 0"€  ÐòòMirandaóó€rights.Ð #l! ÐÓ  Óà ` àDespite€this€offending€testimony,€we€are€convinced€that€its€admission€was€harmlessÐ ô$D # Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and€that€it€did€not€trench€upon€the€defendantððs€constitutional€rights€to€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdegree€that€would€nullify€his€trial€and€conviction.€€We€note€that€the€testimony€consists€of€a€singleÐ Ì&"% Ðstatement€made€during€a€three„day€trial.€€The€officer€did€not€provide€any€details€beyond€the€oneÐ ¸'#& Ðstatement,€and€the€state€did€not€argue€in€closing€that€the€defendant€did€not€make€a€statement.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐMoreover,€on€cross€examination€of€the€officer,€defense€counsel€elicited€from€the€officer€that€he€hadÐ )à$( Ðto€show€the€defendant€where€to€sign€the€form,€presumably€to€rebut€that€the€defendant€was€coherentÐ |*Ì%) Ðafter€the€shooting.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Donald€Ray€Smithóó,€No.€W1990„00156„SC„R11„CD,€slip€op.€at€10Ð h+¸&* Ð(Tenn.,€Jackson,€June€30,€2000)€(ð ðWhen€the€State€places€objectionable€evidence€before€the€jury,€andÐ ° Ðdefense€counsel€inquires€at€length€about€the€evidence€on€cross„examination,€any€error€in€admittingÐ œì Ðthe€evidence€is€generally€cured.ðð).€€€Although€the€trial€court€gave€the€jury€no€curative€or€limitingÐ ˆØ Ðinstruction€that€a€person€in€custody€who€has€been€advised€of€his€rights€is€not€obligated€to€make€anyÐ tÄ Ðstatement,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€omission€provides€grounds€for€reversal.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.Ð `° ÐReeceóó,€637€S.W.2d€858,€861€(Tenn.€1982).Ð L œ ÐÓ”Óòòb.€Evidence€of€Prior€Bad€ActsóóÐ $ t ÐÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant€complains€that€evidence€of€a€prior€bad€act€was€erroneously€admittedÐ ü L  Ðwhen€Jeanne€Beth€testified€that€the€defendant€had€broken€into€her€fatherððs€house€a€few€days€beforeÐ è 8  Ðthe€shooting.€€He€argues€that€the€witness€described€an€uncharged€act€that€was€inadmissible€underÐ Ô$  ÐRule€404(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€The€defendant€did€not€timely€object€to€thisÐ À  Ðtestimony.Ð ¬ü  Ðà ` àIt€€is€a€well-established€rule€that€a€defendant's€failure€to€timely€object€and€call€thisÐ „Ô  Ðissue€to€the€trial€courtððs€attention€constitutes€a€waiver€of€appellate€review€of€the€issue.€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð pÀ ÐR.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€8€S.W.3d€593,€603€òòóó(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Thorntonóó,€10€S.W.3d€229,Ð \¬ Ð234€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€waived.€€Regardless,€a€review€of€the€recordÐ H˜ Ðshows€that€the€witness€volunteered€the€information,€and€the€prosecutor€did€not€inquire€into€the€detailsÐ 4„ Ðof€the€defendant€breaking€into€the€house.€€Furthermore,€the€danger€and€prejudice€that€arise€fromÐ  p Ðadmitting€evidence€of€a€prior€bad€act€is€that€jurors€may€view€a€defendant€as€having€a€propensity€toÐ  \ Ðcommit€certain€offenses€ð!ð€ð ðif€he€did€it€once,€heððll€do€it€againðð€logic.€€In€this€case,€the€defendantÐ øH Ðadmitted€that€he€fired€the€first€shot€in€order€to€open€the€locked€door€and€enter€the€house.€€As€a€result,Ð ä4 Ðthe€jury€had€no€reason€to€speculate€whether€an€earlier€break„in€somehow€demonstrated€a€propensityÐ Ð  Ðfor€the€defendant€to€commit€any€of€the€charged€offenses.€€We€conclude€that€the€defendant€was€notÐ ¼  Ðprejudiced€by€this€testimony.Ð ¨ø Ðòòc.€Impeachment€of€the€Defendant€as€a€WitnessóóÐ €Ð Ðà ` àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€he€was€improperly€impeached€with€evidence€ofÐ X ¨ Ðhis€prior€felony€theft€conviction.€€The€defendant€argues€that€impeachment€was€improper€because€hisÐ D!” Ðcredibility€was€not€at€issue€and€that€the€evidence€was€inadmissible€because€it€was€highly€prejudicial.€Ð 0"€  ÐDuring€the€cross„examination€of€the€defendant,€the€district€attorney€asked€him€if€he€had€pleadedÐ #l! Ðguilty€to€felony€theft€of€a€vehicle€in€1996.€€The€defendant€responded€that€the€conviction€was€forÐ $X" Ðreceiving€stolen€property,€to€which€the€district€attorney€countered€that€the€record€would€show€thatÐ ô$D # Ðthe€defendant€was€convicted€of€felony€theft€for€the€possession€of€a€stolen€vehicle.€€Ð à%0!$ Ðà ` àThe€State€of€Tennessee€may€use€a€prior€conviction€to€impeach€an€accused€if€theÐ ¸'#& Ðconviction€meets€the€criteria€established€by€Rule€609€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€TheÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcriteria€for€admission€under€Rule€€609€are:€(a)€the€prior€conviction€was€for€a€crime€punishable€byÐ )à$( Ðdeath€or€imprisonment€in€excess€of€one€(1)€year€or€a€misdemeanor€conviction€involving€dishonestyÐ |*Ì%) Ðor€a€false€statement;€(b)€less€than€ten€(10)€years€has€elapsed€between€the€date€the€accused€wasÐ h+¸&* Ðreleased€from€confinement€and€the€commencement€of€the€present€prosecution;€(c)€the€state€must€giveÐ ° Ðreasonable€written€notice€of€the€particular€convictions€prior€to€trial€if€it€intends€to€use€them€toÐ œì Ðimpeach€the€accused;€and€(d)€the€trial€court,€upon€request,€must€find€the€probative€value€of€eachÐ ˆØ Ðconviction€on€the€issue€of€credibility€outweighs€its€unfair€prejudicial€effect.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ð tÄ Ð609(a)(2)-(3),€(b).€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Farmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€837,€839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð `° Ðà ` àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€defendant€had€been€convicted€previously€of€a€Class€E€felonyÐ 8 ˆ Ðtheft€which€occurred€less€than€ten€years€before€his€trial.€€Seven€months€before€trial,€the€state€filed€aÐ $ t Ðwritten€notice€that€it€intended€to€impeach€the€defendant€with€his€felony€conviction.€€The€first€threeÐ  ` Ðrequirements€of€Rule€609€have€thus€been€satisfied,€and€we€now€look€at€the€fourth,€whether€theÐ ü L  Ðprobative€value€outweighs€its€unfair€prejudicial€effect.€€First,€we€note€that€the€defendant€himselfÐ è 8  Ðintroduced€evidence€of€this€conviction€during€his€direct€examination.€€Defense€counsel€asked€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant€if€he€knew€that€the€vehicle€was€stolen,€€and€the€defendant€replied€that€he€did€not.€€At€thisÐ À  Ðpoint,€the€trial€court€properly€rebuked€defense€counsel€for€delving€into€whether€the€defendant€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðinnocent€of€the€crime€for€which€he€was€convicted.€€The€defendant€then€admitted€that€he€pleadedÐ ˜è  Ðguilty€to€purchasing€a€stolen€vehicle.€€On€cross„examination,€the€district€attorney€established€that€theÐ „Ô  Ðdefendant€was€convicted€of€felony€theft.€€Inasmuch€as€the€defendant€first€introduced€this€evidence,Ð pÀ Ðhe€cannot€now€complain€that€it€was€improperly€admitted.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Kendricksóó,€947€S.W.2dÐ \¬ Ð875,€883€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(defendantððs€ð ðless€than€candidðð€testimony€on€direct€examinationÐ H˜ Ðopened€the€door€to€further€inquiry€on€cross„examination€about€prior€convictions).Ð 4„ ÐÓàšÓÓ  Óà ` àSecond,€the€defendant€argues€that€his€credibility€was€not€at€issue.€€We€disagree.€€TheÐ  \ Ðdefendant€testified€at€trial,€and€he€desired€the€jury€to€believe€his€version€of€the€circumstances€overÐ øH Ðthat€of€the€stateððs€witnesses.€€As€such,€his€credibility€was€at€issue.€€This€principal€is€firmly€embeddedÐ ä4 Ðin€our€jurisprudence.€€Evidence€of€a€felony€theft€conviction€is€highly€probative€of€credibility.€€òòSeeóóÐ Ð  ÐòòState€v.€Bakeróó,€956€S.W.2d€8,€15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(offense€of€theft€is€"highly€probative€ofÐ ¼  Ðcredibility"€because€the€crime€involves€dishonesty).€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€districtÐ ¨ø Ðattorneyððs€cross„examination€with€respect€to€the€defendantððs€felony€theft€conviction€was€proper.€Ð ”ä ÐÓ ±Óòòd.€Testimony€Offered€to€Arouse€Passion€and€SympathyóóÐ l¼ ÐÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€testimony€of€Regina€Caksackkar,€the€sister€of€theÐ D!” Ðhomicide€victim,€was€offered€solely€to€arouse€passion€and€sympathy€of€the€jurors.€€Ms.€CaksackkarÐ 0"€  Ðtestified€that€the€homicide€victim€was€31€years€old€when€he€died€and€that€he€had€two€children.€€SheÐ #l! Ðsaid€that€his€mother€had€a€heart€attack€several€weeks€before€the€trial€and€could€not€attend.€€Also,€Ms.Ð $X" ÐCaksackkar€testified€that€she€was€engaged€to€Kenneth€Tanner,€Jeanne€Bethððs€father.€€The€defendantÐ ô$D # Ðdid€not€timely€object€to€any€of€the€testimony€by€Ms.€Caksackkar,€although€he€did€raise€the€issue€inÐ à%0!$ Ðhis€motion€for€new€trial.€€He€now€claims€that€the€introduction€of€this€evidence€constitutes€plain€error.€Ð Ì&"% ÐIt€is€a€well-established€rule€that€a€defendant's€failure€to€timely€object€and€call€this€issue€to€the€trialÐ ¸'#& Ðcourtððs€attention€constitutes€a€waiver€of€appellate€review€of€the€issue.€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);Ð ¤(ô#' ÐòòState€v.€Hallóó,€8€S.W.3d€593,€603€òòóó(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Thorntonóó,€10€S.W.3d€229,€234€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð )à$( ÐApp.€1999).€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€waived,€and€we€do€not€find€plain€error.Ð |*Ì%) Ðà ` àEvidence€is€deemed€relevant€if€it€has€"any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€factÐ ° Ðthat€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€wouldÐ œì Ðbe€without€the€evidence."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Although€relevant€evidence€is€generally€admissible,Ð ˆØ ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€402,€it€"may€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€theÐ tÄ Ðdanger€of€unfair€prejudice€...€or€by€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needlessÐ `° Ðpresentation€of€cumulative€evidence."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€We€conclude€that€the€testimony,Ð L œ Ðalthough€not€overly€probative,€was€not€unfairly€prejudicial.€€The€witness,€who€was€the€first€witnessÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€testify€in€the€three€day€trial,€testified€about€the€homicide€victimððs€family.€€She€also€testified€aboutÐ $ t Ðher€and€the€victimððs€relationships€to€the€defendantððs€family.€€She€was€engaged€to€Jeanne€BethððsÐ  ` Ðfather,€and€the€victim€worked€for€Jeanne€Bethððs€father.€€This€testimony€provided€the€jury€withÐ ü L  Ðbackground€information€on€the€various€parties€involved€and€future€witnesses.€€There€was€no€plainÐ è 8  Ðerror.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b).€Ð Ô$  ÐÓÕ´Óòòe.€Failure€to€Admit€Defendantððs€StatementóóÐ ¬ü  ÐÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant€complains€that€a€statement€he€made€to€his€father€was€not€admitted€byÐ „Ô  Ðthe€trial€court.€€The€defendantððs€father€testified€that€on€the€night€of€the€shooting,€he€called€theÐ pÀ Ðdefendantððs€cellular€telephone€and€when€his€son€answered,€his€son€blurted€out,€ð ðSomebody€told€meÐ \¬ ÐI€shot€somebody.ðð€€The€defendantððs€father€asked,€ð ðWhat€did€you€say?,ðð€to€which€the€defendantÐ H˜ Ðanswered,€ð ðSomebody€told€ð!ð.ð ð€€At€this€point,€the€state€objected€on€hearsay€grounds.€€The€defendantÐ 4„ Ðargued€that€the€statement€was€not€hearsay;€rather,€it€was€offered€to€show€the€circumstances€leadingÐ  p Ðup€to€the€defendantððs€meeting€with€his€father€in€the€field.€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€objection.€Ð  \ ÐThe€trial€court€instructed€the€witness€that€he€was€not€to€testify€as€to€what€he€was€told.€€The€trial€courtÐ øH Ðdid€not€give€a€curative€or€limiting€instruction€to€the€jury.€€The€defendant€did€not€make€a€proffer€ofÐ ä4 Ðevidence€of€any€additional€statements€made€by€the€defendant€to€his€father.€€Ð Ð  Ðà ` àOn€appeal,€the€defendant€argues€that€his€statement,€ð ðSomebody€told€me€I€shotÐ ¨ø Ðsomebody,ðð€falls€under€the€excited€utterance€hearsay€exception,€òòseeóóTenn.€R.€Evid.€803(2),€and€underÐ ”ä Ðthe€then€existing€state€of€mind,€emotion€and€mental€feeling€hearsay€exception.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ð €Ð Ð803(3).€€The€defendant€claims€that€the€statement€is€necessary€to€show€the€defendantððs€state€of€mindÐ l¼ Ðand€behavior€shortly€after€the€shooting.€€The€state€responds€that€the€jury€heard,€as€substantiveÐ X ¨ Ðevidence,€the€gist€of€the€defendantððs€statement,€and€only€the€repetition€of€the€statement€was€cut€off.€Ð D!” ÐÌà ` àThe€jury€heard€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€complains€was€not€admitted.€Ð $X" ÐFurthermore,€the€jury€was€not€instructed€to€ignore€or€to€not€consider€the€testimony€reciting€theÐ ô$D # Ðdefendantððs€statement.€€Accordingly,€although€the€trial€court€sustained€the€objection,€the€ð ðbell€hadÐ à%0!$ Ðbeen€rungðð€and€the€jury€heard€the€evidence€as€substantive€evidence.€€We€find€no€reversible€error.Ð Ì&"% ÐÓØ¿Óòòf.€Failure€to€Admit€Wifeððs€StatementóóÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant€complains€that€his€then„wifeððs€statement€to€the€police€was€not€shownÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€the€jury.€€Jeanne€Beth€testified€on€direct€examination€that€she€saw€the€defendantððs€face€throughÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€backdoor€window€before€the€shooting.€€During€the€defendantððs€cross„examination€of€her,€sheÐ ° Ðtestified€that€she€wrote€a€statement€for€the€police€the€night€of€the€shooting.€€She€admitted€that€she€didÐ œì Ðnot€put€in€her€statement€that€she€saw€the€defendant€before€the€shooting.€€Her€statement€read,€ð ðThenÐ ˆØ ÐI€sat€up€on€the€bar€then,€through€the€window,€I€saw€something.€I€went€to€get€down,€and€Jamie€sawÐ tÄ ÐJason.ðð€€She€explained€that€the€differences€between€her€statement€and€testimony€were€because€sheÐ `° Ðwas€upset€when€she€made€the€statement.€€She€was€adamant€that€she€saw€the€defendant€that€night,€andÐ L œ Ðshe€was€sure€that€the€homicide€victim€also€saw€him€because€the€victim€was€standing€beside€her€whenÐ 8 ˆ Ðshe€saw€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€cross„examined€Deputy€Gargus€of€the€Obion€County€SheriffððsÐ $ t ÐDepartment€about€Jeanne€Bethððs€statement.€€He€testified€that€she€made€the€statement.€€The€defendantÐ  ` Ðthen€sought€to€admit€a€copy€of€the€statement€and€show€it€to€the€jury.€€The€trial€court€permitted€theÐ ü L  Ðstatement€to€be€marked€for€identification€purposes€only.Ð è 8  ÐÓ¤ÉÓÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€statement€was€admissible€as€a€prior€inconsistentÐ À  Ðstatement.€€This€court€has€said€in€the€past€that€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€do€not€defineÐ ¬ü  Ðð ðinconsistent.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Kendricksóó,€947€S.W.2d€875,€882€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòsee€alsoóóÐ ˜è  ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€613.€€Considering€that€the€witnessððs€statement€was€not€clearly€inconsistent€with€herÐ „Ô  Ðtestimony,€we€do€not€feel€compelled€to€address€that€issue€in€the€case€at€bar.€€Rather,€we€areÐ pÀ Ðpersuaded€by€the€general€rule€that€ð ð[e]xtrinsic€evidence€of€a€prior€inconsistent€statement€remainsÐ \¬ Ðinadmissible€when€a€witness€unequivocally€admits€to€having€made€the€prior€statement.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð H˜ ÐMartinóó,€964€S.W.2d€564,€567€(Tenn.€1998)€(holding€that€ð ðthe€admissibility€of€the€extrinsic€evidenceÐ 4„ Ðis€contingent€upon€whether€the€witness€admits€or€denies€having€made€the€prior€inconsistentÐ  p Ðstatementðð).€€ð ðThe€unequivocal€admission€of€a€prior€statement€renders€the€extrinsic€evidence€bothÐ  \ Ðcumulative€and€consistent€with€a€statement€made€by€the€witness€during€trial.ðð€€òòId.óó€€In€the€case€at€bar,Ð øH Ðthe€witness€testified€that€she€wrote€the€statement,€and€she€explained€that€she€was€upset€that€night.€Ð ä4 ÐIn€light€of€Jeanne€Bethððs€unequivocal€admission€to€making€the€statement,€we€conclude€that€the€copyÐ Ð  Ðof€the€statement€was€inadmissible,€and€the€trial€court€correctly€permitted€the€statement€to€be€markedÐ ¼  Ðonly€for€identification.Ð ¨ø ÐÓ´ÏÓÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€not€comply€with€Tennessee€Rule€ofÐ €Ð ÐCriminal€Procedure€30.01€because€it€did€not€have€good€cause€for€determining€that€the€copy€of€theÐ l¼ Ðstatement€should€not€go€to€the€jury€room.€€The€defendantððs€reliance€on€rule€30.01€is€misplaced.€€ThatÐ X ¨ Ðrule€requires€that€all€exhibits€be€given€to€the€jurors€and€taken€into€the€jury€room,€unless€the€trial€courtÐ D!” Ðdetermines€otherwise,€for€good€cause.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€30.01.€€Because€the€statement€was€notÐ 0"€  Ðadmissible,€it€was€marked€only€for€identification€purposes€and€was€not€made€an€exhibit;€therefore,Ð #l! Ðthe€rule€does€not€apply.Ð $X" ÐÓ§ÖÓòòg.€Medical€Examinerððs€Testimony€óóÐ à%0!$ ÐÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Deering,€the€medical€examiner,Ð ¸'#& Ðwas€improper.€€First,€he€complains€that€the€doctor€testified€about€the€contents€of€hospital€records€thatÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhe€reviewed€and€that€those€records€were€not€present€in€court.€€Next,€the€defendant€complains€that€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âdoctor€testified€as€to€the€cause€of€death€of€the€homicide€victim€only€on€redirect€examination,€but€notÐ |*Ì%) Ðon€direct.€€Finally,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€prosecutor€engaged€in€improper€redirectÐ ° Ðexamination.Ð œì Ðâ âà ` àDr.€Deeringððs€testimony€was€straightforward€and€unremarkable.€€Quite€simply,€thereÐ tÄ Ðwas€nothing€improper€about€allowing€Dr.€Deering€to€express€his€expert€opinions€and€conclusions.€Ð `° ÐPursuant€to€Rule€703€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€ð ð[e]xperts€in€the€field€may€base€opinionsÐ L œ Ðon€facts€not€in€evidence€under€this€rule.ðð€€Advisory€Commission€Comments,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€703.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐThat€Dr.€Deering€had€reviewed€and€then€testified€about€hospital€records,€which€had€not€beenÐ $ t Ðindependently€offered€and€admitted€at€trial,€is€of€no€moment.€€Moreover,€Rule€705€of€the€TennesseeÐ  ` ÐRules€of€Evidence€provides€a€mechanism€for€the€disclosure€of€facts€or€data€underlying€expertÐ ü L  Ðopinions.€€The€defendant€could€have,€but€did€not,€ask€the€trial€court€to€require€Dr.€Deering€or€theÐ è 8  Ðprosecution€to€obtain€and€produce€for€defense€inspection€the€hospital€records€of€which€he€complains.Ð Ô$  Ðà ` àMore€fundamentally,€however,€the€defendant€has€failed€to€cite€any€authority€in€hisÐ ¬ü  Ðappellate€brief€to€show€why€Dr.€Deeringððs€testimony€was€objectionable€and€why€it€should€have€beenÐ ˜è  Ðexcluded.€€Likewise,€he€has€failed€to€explain€how€any€part€of€Dr.€Deeringððs€testimony€wasÐ „Ô  Ðimproperly€and€unduly€prejudicial.€€Furthermore,€the€defendant€failed€to€make€any€objection€at€trialÐ pÀ Ðto€the€admission€or€alleged€prejudicial€character€of€Dr.€Deeringððs€testimony.€€The€issue€is€waived.€Ð \¬ ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€App.€10(b).Ð H˜ ÐòòÓÿÙÓÓ  ÓIII.€Prosecutorial€MisconductóóÐ  p ÐÓMãÓòòa.€Defendantððs€Statements€Made€to€Stateððs€PsychologistóóÐ øH ÐÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant€complains€that€it€was€prosecutorial€misconduct€for€the€prosecution€Ð Ð  Ðto€question€an€examining€psychologist€regarding€statements€the€defendant€made€during€a€forensicÐ ¼  Ðevaluation.€€The€psychologist,€Dr.€Lynne€Zager,€testified€during€the€stateððs€rebuttal.€€When€asked€byÐ ¨ø Ðthe€state€what€the€defendant€told€her€about€the€shooting,€she€testified€to€the€statements€the€defendantÐ ”ä Ðmade€to€her€about€the€shooting.€€The€defendant€did€not€contemporaneously€object€to€this€testimony,Ð €Ð Ðalthough€he€did€raise€the€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€The€defendantððs€failure€toÐ l¼ Ðcontemporaneously€object€and€call€this€issue€to€the€trial€courtððs€attention€constitutes€waiver€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðissue.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€8€S.W.3d€593,€603€òòóó(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Thorntonóó,Ð D!” Ð10€S.W.3d€229,€234€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).€€Regardless,€we€will€consider€the€issue€on€its€merits.Ð 0"€  Ðà ` àAlthough€the€defendant€couches€this€complaint€as€one€of€prosecutorial€misconduct,Ð $X" Ðthe€issue€is€truly€one€of€admissibility€because,€in€essence,€the€defendant€is€complaining€that€the€stateÐ ô$D # Ðintroduced€evidence€that€was€not€admissible.€€Of€course,€there€would€be€no€prosecutorial€misconductÐ à%0!$ Ðif€the€testimony€was€admissible.€€òòState€v.€Alleyóó,€776€S.W.2d€506,€519€(Tenn.€1989)€(holding€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðprosecutorððs€leading€questions€regarding€false€and€non„existing€facts€constituted€misconduct).€€Ð ¸'#& Ðà ` àThe€defendant€points€to€òòState€v.€Huskeyóó,€964€S.W.2d€892€(Tenn.€1998),€as€supportÐ )à$( Ðfor€his€argument€that€the€testimony€of€the€psychologist€was€improper.€€In€òòHuskeyóó,€the€defendant€filedÐ |*Ì%) Ðan€interlocutory€appeal€to€prevent€disclosure€of€a€mental€evaluation€to€the€state.€€òòId.óó€at€892„96.€€TheÐ h+¸&* ÐòòHuskeyóó€court€reaffirmed€its€holding€in€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€950€S.W.2d€20€(Tenn.1997).€€In€òòMartinóó,€ourÐ ° Ðsupreme€court€held€Ð œì ÐÓõãÓÓ* °,X›X°,X°` ˜X*ÓÓ  Óà8  àthat€where€a€defendant€asserts€a€defense€based€on€his€or€her€mental€state,€aÐ tÄ Ðcourt-ordered€mental€evaluation€does€not€violate€the€right€against€self-incriminationÐ `° Ðprovided€any€statements€made€during€the€evaluation,€and€any€"fruits"€derived€fromÐ L œ Ðsuch€statements,€are€used€by€the€prosecution€only€for€impeachment€or€rebuttal€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefense.Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÓ íÓÓ.°,X°` ˜X°,X›Xáì.ÓòòÓ  ÓMartinóó,€950€S.W.2d€at€21.€€The€òòHuskeyóó€court€stated€that€ð ðthe€admissibility€of€the€defendant'sÐ ü L  Ðstatements€made€during€an€examination€at€trial€is€expressly€limited€to€impeachment€or€rebuttal€ofÐ è 8  Ðthe€mental€condition€evidence€introduced€by€the€defendant.ðð€€òòHuskeyóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€897.€€"In€otherÐ Ô$  Ðwords,€such€material€may€not€be€used€by€the€prosecution€to€prove€the€guilt€of€the€defendant€and€mayÐ À  Ðnot€be€used€if€the€defense€does€not€introduce€testimony€at€trial€on€mental€condition."€€òòMartinóó,€950Ð ¬ü  ÐS.W.2d€at€24-25.Ð ˜è  Ðà ` àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€defendant€introduced€evidence€of€his€claimed€diminishedÐ pÀ Ðcapacity.€€The€defendantððs€expert€testified€that€the€defendant€did€not€have€the€capacity€to€form€theÐ \¬ Ðintent€to€commit€a€crime,€nor€was€he€able€to€understand€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct.€€In€rebuttal,Ð H˜ Ðthe€state€called€Dr.€Zager.€€As€part€of€her€testimony€concerning€the€defendantððs€state€of€mind€and€hisÐ 4„ Ðability€to€remember€the€events€of€the€shooting,€she€repeated€what€the€defendant€told€her€that€heÐ  p Ðremembered€of€the€shooting.Ð  \ ÐÓ%ïÓÓ* °,X›X°,X°` ˜X*ÓÓ  Óà8  àI€remember€being€at€the€house.€€I€walked€passed€[sic]€the€front€door.€€I€could€see€inÐ ä4 Ðthe€living€room€that€there€was€no€one€there.€€I€looked€in€the€window€on€the€bucketÐ Ð  Ðand€I€saw€someone€in€bed€in€the€dadððs€bedroom.€€I€went€to€the€back€and€I€was€pullingÐ ¼  Ðon€the€screen€door€to€open€it,€and€thatððs€when€the€gun€went€off.€€It€shot€through€theÐ ¨ø Ðwindow€in€the€door,€and€then€I€tried€to€open€the€door€and€it€was€locked,€so€I€tried€toÐ ”ä Ðshoot€the€lock€off€the€door.ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÓ„ôÓÓ.°,X°` ˜X°,X›XZô.ÓÓ  ÓIt€is€this€testimony€of€which€the€defendant€complains.€€The€defendantððs€statement€is€a€priorÐ X ¨ Ðinconsistent€statement€of€his€trial€testimony€and€was€used€to€impeach€him.€€The€defendant€testifiedÐ D!” Ðat€trial€that€he€only€remembered€shooting€the€door€to€open€it.€€He€did€not€remember€firing€throughÐ 0"€  Ðthe€window€and€he€did€not€remember€checking€to€see€if€the€door€was€locked.€€The€defendantððs€priorÐ #l! Ðstatement€also€tends€to€rebut€his€claim€of€diminished€capacity€because,€for€instance,€the€statementÐ $X" Ðrecounts€a€logical,€detailed€version€of€events.€€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€Dr.€Zagerððs€€testimonyÐ ô$D # Ðwas€admissible,€and€it€comports€with€òòHuskeyóó€and€òòMartinóó;€it€was€given€by€the€doctor€in€relation€toÐ à%0!$ Ðher€opinion€regarding€the€defendantððs€memories,€which€was€relevant€to€the€issue€of€the€defendantððsÐ Ì&"% Ðmemory€and€mental€state€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€has€no€merit.Ð ¸'#& Ðâ âÓ*÷Óòòb.€Closing€ArgumentóóÐ )à$( ÐÑÔ:Ñâ âÑTRY,3Ø' LetterXà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ8€5¤XXdê»»d 8Ñâ âÑ  ÑÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant€complains€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€in€closing€argument€when€theÐ ° Ðâ âdistrict€attorney€argued€elements€not€required€for€the€offense,€made€references€to€facts€not€inÐ œì Ðevidence,€used€sarcasm,€and€made€improper€comments.€€Generally,€counsel€for€both€the€state€andÐ ˆØ Ðthe€defendant€are€permitted€wide€latitude€in€arguing€their€cases€to€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€797,€809€(Tenn.€1994).€€Arguments€must€be€temperate,€predicated€on€evidence€introducedÐ `° Ðduring€the€trial,€relevant€to€the€issues€being€tried,€and€not€otherwise€improper€under€the€facts€or€law.Ð L œ ÐòòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€995€S.W.2d€550,€557€(Tenn.€1999).€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÓ‚ýÓÓ  Óà ` àTo€prevail€on€a€claim€of€prosecutorial€misconduct,€the€defendant€must€show€that€theÐ  ` Ðargument€was€so€inflammatory€or€the€conduct€so€improper€that€it€affected€the€verdict€to€hisÐ ü L  Ðdetriment.€€òòSeeóó€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€215€Tenn.€338,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(1965);€òòState€v.€Grayóó,€960Ð è 8  ÐS.W.2d€598,€609€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€On€appellate€review,€this€court€should€Ð Ô$  ÐÒ°ÒÒ°Òð ðconsider€several€factors€including€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor,€the€curative€measuresÐ ¬ü  Ðwhich€were€undertaken€by€the€court,€the€improper€conduct€viewed€in€context€and€inÐ ˜è  Ðlight€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case,€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€remarksÐ „Ô  Ðwith€any€other€errors€in€the€record,€and€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.ðð€Ð pÀ ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒòòGrayóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€609.€€In€addition,€we€must€keep€in€mind€that€closing€argument€is€subject€to€theÐ H˜ Ðtrial€courtððs€discretionary€control.€€€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€995€S.W.2d€at€557.Ð 4„ ÐÓÂÓÓ  Óà ` àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€district€attorney€argued€that€second€degree€murder€was€theÐ  \ Ðknowing€killing€of€another.€€He€asked€the€jury,€ð ðDid€Jason€Beeler€knowingly€shoot€that€gun,Ð øH Ðknowing€that€the€likely€result€could€be€the€killing€of€Jamie€Boane?ðð€€The€defendant€objected€to€thisÐ ä4 Ðdefinition€of€second€degree€murder,€claiming€that€second€degree€murder€requires€intent.€€The€trialÐ Ð  Ðcourt€stated€that€if€an€intentional€killing€is€shown,€a€knowing€killing€is€also€shown.€€The€trial€courtÐ ¼  Ðpermitted€the€district€attorney€to€continue;€however,€it€first€instructed€the€jury€that€the€trial€court€willÐ ¨ø Ðinstruct€the€jury€as€to€the€law€and€that€if€either€attorney€argues€anything€that€conflicts€with€thoseÐ ”ä Ðinstructions,€then€the€jury€is€to€disregard€the€attorneyððs€description€of€the€law.€€We€see€noÐ €Ð Ðprosecutorial€misconduct€here.€€First,€the€district€attorney€properly€stated€the€law€because€secondÐ l¼ Ðdegree€murder€is€a€knowing€killing€of€another.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210(a)(1)€(1997).€€Second,Ð X ¨ Ðthe€trial€court€gave€a€curative€instruction€that€the€jury€is€to€receive€instructions€on€the€law€solely€fromÐ D!” Ðthe€trial€court.€€The€jury€is€presumed€to€follow€the€instructions€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Nesbitóó,€978Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.2d€872,€894€(Tenn.€1998).€€Ð #l! ÐÓ}ÓÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€district€attorney€argued€facts€not€in€evidence€whenÐ ô$D # Ðhe€described€the€defendantððs€actions€immediately€before€the€shooting.€€We€disagree.€€The€districtÐ à%0!$ Ðattorney€stated,€ð ðHe€had€stalked€ð!ð€he€had€gone€up€to€the€house,€cased€the€house,€walked€around,€gotÐ Ì&"% Ða€bucket,€.€.€.€looked€into€the€bedroom€window€.€.€.€observed€who€was€in€the€house,€went€around€backÐ ¸'#& Ðand€pulled€the€phone€lines€and€then€shot€two€shots.ðð€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€did€notÐ ¤(ô#' Ðremember€pulling€the€telephone€wires€out€of€the€connection€box.€€The€evidence€showed,€however,Ð )à$( Ðthat€the€telephone€worked€shortly€before€the€shooting€and€was€not€working€minutes€after€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðshooting.€€The€evidence€also€showed€that€the€wires€had€been€pulled€out€of€the€telephone€connectionÐ h+¸&* Ðbox.€€Jeanne€Beth€testified€that€the€defendant€made€her€run€out€of€the€house€to€his€car.€€A€reasonableÐ ° Ðinference€from€this€evidence€is€that€the€defendant€pulled€the€telephone€cables€from€the€box€beforeÐ œì Ðthe€shooting.€€Accordingly,€this€portion€of€the€district€attorneyððs€argument€was€supported€by€theÐ ˆØ Ðevidence€and€was€not€improper.Ð tÄ Ðà ` àLast,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€district€attorney€made€improper€comments€andÐ L œ Ðused€sarcasm€several€times€in€his€closing.€€While€discussing€the€testimony€of€€Dr.€Zager,€the€districtÐ 8 ˆ Ðattorney€said€that€Dr.€Zager€had€the€information€contained€in€the€report€by€the€defendantððsÐ $ t Ðpsychologist,€Dr.€Monet.€€The€district€attorney€said,€€ð ðAs€you€might€imagine,€Dr.€Monetððs€opinionÐ  ` Ðin€his€report€is€very€long.€€Youððd€be€surprised€if€it€wasnððt,€I€would€imagine.ðð€€In€discussing€theÐ ü L  Ðdefendantððs€psychologistððs€testimony,€the€district€attorney€said,€ð ðDr.€Monet€testified€ð!ð€and€you€heardÐ è 8  Ð[defense€counsel]€go€back€to€the€book€he€was€referring€to€ð!ð€that€he€was€a€level€10€on€the€GAF€scaleÐ Ô$  Ðð!ð€òòwhatever€the€heck€that€isóó€ð!ð€and€that€on€level€10,€a€person€is€incapable€of€functioning,€canððt€takeÐ À  Ðcare€of€personal€hygiene€ð!ð€doesnððt€bathe?€ð!ð€I€donððt€know.ðð€€(Emphasis€added).€€In€discussing€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendantððs€conduct€after€the€shooting€and€arguing€that€it€showed€that€the€defendant€appreciated€theÐ ˜è  Ðwrongfulness€of€his€conduct,€the€district€attorney€asked,€ð ðIs€Dr.€Monet€saying€that€he€was€òòjust€aÐ „Ô  Ðblithering,€incapable€idiotóó€for€just€that€one€second€when€he€shot€the€gun€through€the€window,€thenÐ pÀ Ðafter€that,€all€of€a€sudden€he€was€fine?ðð€€(Emphasis€added).Ð \¬ Ðà ` àThe€standard€of€review€in€determining€whether€counsel€was€allowed€too€muchÐ 4„ Ðlatitude€during€closing€argument€is€abuse€of€discretion.€€Closing€arguments€must€be€temperate;€theyÐ  p Ðmust€be€predicated€on€evidence€introduced€during€the€trial€of€a€case,€and€they€must€be€pertinent€toÐ  \ Ðthe€issues€being€tried.€€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€562€S.W.2d€820,€823€(Tenn.€1978).€€ð ðBased€in€great€measureÐ øH Ðupon€the€role€of€the€prosecutor€in€the€criminal€justice€system,€the€most€restrictions€are€placed€on€theÐ ä4 Ðstate.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€976€S.W.2d€121,€158€(Tenn.€1998).€€It€is€the€stateððs€responsibility€to€ð ðrefrainÐ Ð  Ðfrom€argument€designed€to€inflame€the€jury€and€should€restrict€its€commentary€to€matters€in€evidenceÐ ¼  Ðof€issues€at€trial.ðð€€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€357,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð ¨ø Ðà ` àDepending€on€the€context,€sarcasmous€rhetoric€may€be€a€legitimate€and€persuasiveÐ €Ð Ðelement€of€closing€argument.€€This€court€has€recognized€that€attorneys€may€employ€ð ðoratoricalÐ l¼ Ðemphasis€in€arguing€their€respective€positions.ðð€€òòState€v.€Princeóó,€713€S.W.2d€914,€918€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð X ¨ ÐApp.€1986).€€Such€oratorical€emphasis€can€ð ðinclude€the€use€of€irony€and€sarcasm€òòfor€the€purpose€ofÐ D!” Ðmaking€relevant€pointsóó.ðð€€òòState€v.€Sledgeóó,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(emphasis€added).Ð 0"€  Ðà ` àWe€believe€that€the€prosecutor's€argument€about€which€the€defendant€complains€inÐ $X" Ðthis€case€was€based€upon€relevant€considerations,€and€it€addressed€a€pivotal€defense€theory€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðcase.€€The€statements€by€the€district€attorney,€we€also€conclude,€were€not€so€inflammatory€as€to€riseÐ à%0!$ Ðto€the€level€required€for€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€Nevertheless,€we€do€note€that€the€third€commentÐ Ì&"% Ð(ð ðjust€a€blithering,€incapable€idiotðð),€while€not€rising€to€the€level€to€affect€the€verdict€to€theÐ ¸'#& Ðdefendantððs€detriment,€approaches€the€limit€of€temperate€argument,€and€prosecutors€would€be€wellÐ ¤(ô#' Ðadvised€to€avoid€characterizations€verging€on€name€calling.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòState€v.€Batesóó,€804Ð )à$( ÐS.W.2d€868,€881€(Tenn.€1991)€(name€calling€by€prosecutor€is€improper).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÓŠ ÓòòÓ  ÓIV.€Jury€InstructionsóóÐ ° ÐÓ!Óòòa.€Lesser€Included€Offenses€for€Felony€MurderÐ ˆØ ÐÓ  Ó(1)€Lesser„included€Offense€DeterminationóóÐ `° ÐÓ  Óà ` àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€instructing€the€jury€on€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðlesser„included€offenses€for€felony€murder.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„18„110(a)€(1997)Ð $ t Ðprovides€that€a€trial€court€must€charge€the€jury€with€all€lesser€offenses€included€in€the€indictment,Ð  ` Ðwithout€any€request€on€the€part€of€the€defendant€to€do€so.Ð ü L  Ðà ` àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€did€not€request€jury€instructions€on€lesser„included€offensesÐ Ô$  Ðfor€felony€murder.€€Section€40„18„110(a),€however,€places€an€affirmative€duty€on€a€trial€courtÐ À  Ðregardless€of€whether€the€defendant€made€the€request.€€Whereas€the€failure€to€object€at€trial€to€anÐ ¬ü  Ðomission€in€the€jury€charge€usually€results€in€waiver€of€the€issue,€òòseeóóTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€30(a)(b);Ð ˜è  ÐòòState€v.€Cravensóó,€764€S.W.2d€754€(Tenn.€1989),€section€40„18„110(a)€carves€out€an€exception€forÐ „Ô  Ðinstructions€on€lesser„included€offenses.Ð pÀ Ðà ` àNevertheless,€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€still€applies€andÐ H˜ Ðis€specific€that€ð ðin€all€cases€tried€by€a€jury,€no€issue€presented€for€review€shall€be€predicated€uponÐ 4„ Ðerror€in€.€.€.€jury€instructions€granted€or€refused,€.€.€.€unless€the€same€was€specifically€stated€in€aÐ  p Ðmotion€for€a€new€trial;€otherwise€such€issues€will€be€treated€as€waived.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€€TheÐ  \ Ðdefendant€in€this€case€failed€to€include€this€issue€in€his€new€trial€motion,€although€he€has€raised€itÐ øH Ðon€appeal.€€Therefore,€as€part€of€our€consideration€of€the€issues€raised€on€appeal,€we€will€ultimatelyÐ ä4 Ðconsider€whether€any€error€in€failing€to€charge€the€jury€on€lesser„included€offenses€constitutes€plainÐ Ð  Ðerror.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b).Ð ¼  Ðà ` àIn€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453€(Tenn.€1999),€our€supreme€court€revised€theÐ ”ä Ðstandards€for€determining€lesser„included€offenses.€€In€the€companion€case€of€òòState€v.€Dominyóó,€6Ð €Ð ÐS.W.3d€472€(Tenn.€1999),€the€court€confirmed€that€it€had€overruled€portions€of€the€holding€in€òòStateÐ l¼ Ðv.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305€(Tenn.€1996),€in€which€a€distinction€had€been€established€between€lesserÐ X ¨ Ðgrades€or€classes€of€offenses€and€lesser„included€offenses.€€In€òòBurnsóó,€the€court€adopted€the€followingÐ D!” Ðtest€for€determining€what€constitutes€a€lesser„included€offense:Ð 0"€  ÐÓ* °,X›X°,X°` ˜X*Óà8  àAn€offense€is€a€lesser„included€offense€if:Ð$X"Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(a)à0` Ð Ð àall€of€its€statutory€elements€are€included€within€the€statutory€elements€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðoffense€charged;€or€ÐÌ&"%` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à(b)à0` Ð Ð àit€fails€to€meet€the€definition€in€part€(a)€only€in€the€respect€that€it€contains€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðâ âstatutory€element€or€elements€establishing€Ð)à$(` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)à0¸ ` x` xàa€different€mental€state€indicating€a€lesser€kind€of€culpability;Ð ° Ðâ âand/orÐœì¸ x¸ x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)à0¸ ` x` xàa€less€serious€harm€or€risk€of€harm€to€the€same€person,Ð tÄ Ðproperty€or€public€interest;€or€Ð`°¸ x¸ x Ðà8  à(c)à0` Ð Ð àit€consists€of€Ð8 ˆ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)à0¸ ` x` xàfacilitation€of€the€offense€charged€or€of€an€offense€thatÐ  ` Ðotherwise€meets€the€definition€of€lesser„included€offense€inÐ ü L  Ðpart€(a)€or€(b);€or€Ðè 8 ¸ x¸ x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)à0¸ ` x` xàan€attempt€to€commit€the€offense€charged€or€an€offense€thatÐ À  Ðotherwise€meets€the€definition€of€lesser€included€offense€inÐ ¬ü  Ðpart€(a)€or€(b);€or€Ð˜è ¸ x¸ x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)à0¸ ` x` xàsolicitation€to€commit€the€offense€charged€or€an€offense€thatÐ pÀ Ðotherwise€meets€the€definition€of€lesser„included€offense€inÐ \¬ Ðpart€(a)€or€(b).ÐH˜¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓ.°,X°` ˜X°,X›XŽ,.ÓòòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€466„67.€€Ð øH Ðà ` àOnce€it€is€determined€that€an€offense€is€a€lesser„included€offense,€a€two„step€processÐ Ð  Ðis€used€to€determine€if€the€evidence€justifies€a€jury€instruction€on€the€lesser„included€offense:Ð ¼  ÐÓ* °,X›X°,X°` ˜X*Óà8  àFirst,€the€trial€court€must€determine€whether€any€evidence€exists€that€reasonableÐ ”ä Ðminds€could€accept€as€to€the€lesser€included€offense.€€In€making€this€determination,Ð €Ð Ðthe€trial€court€must€view€the€evidence€liberally€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ l¼ Ðexistence€of€the€lesser„included€offense€without€making€any€judgments€on€theÐ X ¨ Ðcredibility€of€such€evidence.€€Second,€the€trial€court€must€determine€if€the€evidence,Ð D!” Ðviewed€in€this€light,€is€legally€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€the€lesser„Ð 0"€  Ðincluded€offense.€€Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÓ.°,X°` ˜X°,X›Xå4.ÓòòId.óó€at€469.€€Ð ô$D # Ðà ` àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€defendant€was€indicted€for€first€degree€premeditated€murder€andÐ Ì&"% Ðfor€felony€murder€in€perpetration€of€a€burglary.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€charge€of€first€degreeÐ ¸'#& Ðpremeditated€murder,€and€on€that€count€of€the€indictment€the€trial€court€charged€the€jury€on€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðâ âlesser„included€offenses€of€second€degree€murder,€voluntary€manslaughter,€reckless€homicide,€andÐ )à$( Ðcriminally€negligent€homicide.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€then€instructed€the€jury€on€the€second€count€of€theÐ ° Ðâ âindictment,€which€charged€felony€murder.€€The€trial€court€did€not€charge€the€jury€on€any€lesser„Ð œì Ðincluded€offenses€for€felony€murder.€€The€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€reckless€homicide€on€theÐ ˆØ Ðfirst€count€and€felony€murder€on€the€second€count.Ð tÄ Ðà ` àAs€an€initial€matter,€we€note€that€indictment€in€this€case€was€returned€by€the€ObionÐ L œ ÐCounty€grand€jury€in€1997.€€Defendant€was€tried€and€convicted€in€1998,€and€he€appealed€hisÐ 8 ˆ Ðconvictions€in€early€1999,€prior€to€the€release€of€the€supreme€courtððs€opinion€on€November€8,€1999,Ð $ t Ðin€òòBurnsóó.€€We€find€no€impediment€to€the€retroactive€application€of€òòBurnsóó€to€cases,€such€as€this€one,Ð  ` Ðthat€are€on€direct€appeal.€€This€court€has€too€often€applied€the€òòBurnsóó€test€retroactively€to€seriouslyÐ ü L  Ðquestion€its€retroactive€nature.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.,óó€òòState€v.€Jumbo€Kurióó,€No.€M1999„00638„CCA„R3„CD,€slipÐ è 8  Ðop.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€May€25,€2000).€€€Likewise,€the€supreme€court€recentlyÐ Ô$  Ðafforded€retroactive€application€to€the€òòBurnsóó€test€in€òòState€v.€Billy€Joe€Stokesóó,€No.€M1997„00083„SC„Ð À  ÐR11„CD€(Tenn.,€Nashville,€July€5,€2000),€wherein€that€defendantððs€trial€and€direct€appeal€wereÐ ¬ü  Ðconcluded€before€òòBurnsóó€was€decided.€€Felony€murder,€as€it€is€now€and€as€it€was€at€the€time€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðdefendantððs€€actions€in€this€case,€is€defined€as€follows:Ð „Ô  ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓ XÓÓ °Óò òà0  à39„13„202.€€First€degree€murder.€ð!ð€ó ó(a)€€FirstÐ \¬ Ðdegree€murder€is:ÐLœ   Ðà  à(1)à h à.€.€.Ð $t Ðà0  à(2)à h àA€killing€of€another€committed€in€theÐ üL Ðperpetration€of€or€attempt€to€perpetrate€anyÐ è8 Ðfirst€degree€murder,€arson,€rape,€robbery,Ð Ô$ Ðburglary,€theft,€kidnapping,€aggravated€childÐ À Ðabuse,€aggravated€child€neglect€[added€byÐ ¬ü Ðamendment€in€1998]€or€aircraft€piracy;€.€.€.€Ð˜è   ÐÓ X?AÓÓ °MAÓÒ°ÒÒ°ÒPursuant€to€subsection€(b)€of€the€first€degree€murder€statute,€ð ðintent€to€commit€the€enumeratedÐ pÀ Ðoffenses€or€acts€in€[subdivision€(a)(2)]ðð€is€required€as€a€culpable€mental€state€for€a€felony€murderÐ \ ¬ Ðconviction.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(b)€(1997).€Ð H!˜ Ðà ` àTennessee€has€only€a€single€first€degree€murder€statute.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„Ð  #p! Ð13„202€(1997).€€Premeditated€murder,€section€39„13„202(a),€and€felony€murder,€section€39„13„Ð  $\" Ð202(b),€are€not€designated€in€our€code€as€separate€and€distinct€offenses€but€rather€as€alternativeÐ ø$H # Ðmeans€by€which€criminal€liability€for€first€degree€murder€may€be€imposed.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòCarter€v.€Stateóó,Ð ä%4!$ Ð958€S.W.2d€620,€624-25€(Tenn.€1997)€€(holding€both€premeditated€murder€and€felony€murder€areÐ Ð& "% Ðsimply€alternate€means€of€committing€the€single€crime€of€first€degree€murder);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòSchad€v.Ð ° ÐArizonaóó,€501€U.S.€624,€640-41,€111€S.€Ct.€2491€(1991)€(concluding€that€most€first€degree€murderÐ œì Ðstatutes€retain€premeditated€murder€and€felony€murder€as€alternative€means€of€satisfying€the€mentalÐ ˆØ Ðstate€requirement).€€This€legal„equivalent€concept€has€been€explained€in€the€following€fashion:Ð tÄ ÐÓ* °,X›X°,X°` ˜X*Óà8  à[I]t€is€not€necessary€that€the€State€prove€an€intention€to€kill€or€that€it€was€committedÐ L œ Ðwillfully,€deliberately,€premeditatedly€and€with€malice€aforethought.€€The€statuteÐ 8 ˆ Ðsupplies€the€elements€necessary€to€a€conviction€of€murder€in€the€first€degree.€€In€otherÐ $ t Ðwords,€ð ðòòthe€premeditated€intent€to€commit€a€felony€or€other€criminal€acts€is,€byÐ  ` Ðimplication€of€law,€transferred€from€that€offense€to€the€homicide€actually€committed,Ð ü L  Ðso€as€to€make€the€latter€offense€a€killing€with€malice€aforethought€constitutingÐ è 8  Ðmurder€in€the€first€degree.óóððÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÓ.°,X°` ˜X°,X›XuI.ÓòòFarmer€v.€Stateóó,€296€S.W.2d,€879,€883€(Tenn.€1956)€(emphasis€in€original).€€The€perpetration€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðfelony,€during€which€a€homicide€occurs,€is€the€ð ðlegal€equivalentðð€of€the€elements€of€first€degreeÐ ˜è  Ðpremeditated€murder,€òòState€v.€Beasleyóó,€699€S.W.2d€565,€567€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985)€(citingÐ „Ô  ÐòòSullivan€v.€Stateóó,€173€Tenn.€475,€121€S.W.2d€535€(1938)€(stating€theories€were€"legal€equivalent")),Ð pÀ Ðwhich€is€defined€pursuant€to€section€39„13„202(a)(1)€as€a€ð ðpremeditated€and€intentional€killing€ofÐ \¬ Ðanother.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(1997).€€This€concept,€sometimes€referred€to€asÐ H˜ Ðtransferred€intent,€remains€embodied€in€our€current€felony€murder€statute,€as€evidenced€by€subsectionÐ 4„ Ð(b)€of€our€first€degree€murder€statute,€whereby€the€culpable€mental€state€required€for€a€felony€murderÐ  p Ðconviction€is€the€intent€to€commit€the€underlying€felony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(b)€(1997).€Ð  \ ÐFelony€murder,€therefore,€requires€a€culpable€mental€state€of€intentional.€€As€a€result,€it€subsumesÐ øH Ðall€the€other€recognized€mental€states.€€That€is,€criminal€negligence€is€also€established€if€a€person€actsÐ ä4 Ðrecklessly,€knowingly€or€intentionally;€recklessness€is€also€established€if€a€person€acts€knowingly€orÐ Ð  Ðintentionally;€knowing€is€also€established€if€a€person€acts€intentionally.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„Ð ¼  Ð301€(1997).Ð ¨ø Ðà ` àWithin€this€framework,€second€degree€murder€is€a€lesser„included€offense€€of€felonyÐ €Ð Ðmurder€under€the€(a)€part€of€the€òòBurnsóó€test,€which€looks€to€see€if€all€the€statutory€elements€of€theÐ l¼ Ðlesser€offenses€are€included€with€the€elements€of€the€charged€offense.€€Second€degree€murder€is€aÐ X ¨ Ðð ðknowing€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210€(1997).€€It€differs€from€felony€murderÐ D!” Ðonly€in€that€second€degree€murder€involves€a€ð ðknowingðð€killing,€a€less€culpable€mental€state€thanÐ 0"€  Ðfirst€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„202(a)(2),€„210(a)(1)€(1997).€€Inasmuch€as€theÐ #l! Ðculpable€mental€state€of€knowing€is€also€established€if€a€persons€acts€intentionally,€part€(a)€of€theÐ $X" ÐòòBurnsóó€test€is€satisfied.€Ð ô$D # Ðà ` àVoluntary€manslaughter€embraces€ð ðknowingðð€killings€as€well€as€ð ðintentionalððÐ Ì&"% Ðkillings.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„211(a)€(1977).€€We€believe€that€voluntary€manslaughter€meetsÐ ¸'#& Ðpart€(a)€of€the€òòBurnsóó€test€because€the€better€view€is€that€ð ðstate€of€passion€produced€by€adequateÐ ¤(ô#' Ðprovocation€sufficient€to€lead€a€reasonable€person€to€act€in€an€irrational€mannerðð€is€not€an€elementÐ )à$( Ðof€voluntary€manslaughter.€€Nevertheless,€the€supreme€court€stated€in€òòState€v.€Dominyóó,€6€S.W.3d€472Ð |*Ì%) Ð(Tenn.€1999),€ð ðthat€the€ððpassionðð€language€in€the€definition€of€voluntary€manslaughter€simply€reflectsÐ h+¸&* Ða€less€culpable€mental€state€than€required€for€first€or€second€degree€murder.ðð€€6€S.W.3d€at€479€n.9.€Ð ° ÐUnder€that€view,€voluntary€manslaughter€qualifies€as€a€lesser„included€offense€€under€part€(b)(1)€ofÐ œì Ðthe€òòBurnsóó€test,€which€asks€if€the€lesser€offense€fails€part€(a)€only€ð ðin€the€respect€that€it€contains€aÐ ˆØ Ðstatutory€element€or€elements€establishing€.€.€.€a€different€mental€state€indicating€a€lesser€kind€ofÐ tÄ Ðculpability.ððà ` àThe€questions€whether€reckless€homicide€and/or€negligent€homicide€are€lesser„Ð `° Ðincluded€offenses€of€felony€murder€are€easily€answered€in€the€affirmative.€€ð ðReckless€homicide€isÐ L œ Ða€reckless€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„215€(1997).€€It€differs€from€felony€murderÐ 8 ˆ Ðonly€in€that€it€involves€a€ð ðrecklessðð€killing,€a€less€culpable€mental€state€than€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóóÐ $ t ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„215(a),€-202(a)(2)€(1997).€€Inasmuch€as€the€culpable€mental€state€ofÐ  ` Ðrecklessness€is€also€established€if€a€person€acts€intentionally,€reckless€homicide€is€a€lesser„includedÐ ü L  Ðoffense€of€felony€murder€under€part€(a)€of€òòBurnsóó.Ð è 8  Ðà ` àCriminally€negligent€homicide€is€defined€as€ð ðcriminally€negligent€conduct€whichÐ À  Ðresults€in€death.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„212€(1997).€€It€differs€from€felony€murder€only€in€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðit€involves€a€ð ðcriminally€negligentðð€killing,€a€less€culpable€mental€state€than€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóóÐ ˜è  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„212,€-202(a)(2)€(1997).€€Inasmuch€as€the€culpable€mental€state€ofÐ „Ô  Ðcriminal€negligence€is€also€established€if€a€person€acts€intentionally,€criminally€€negligent€homicideÐ pÀ Ðis€a€lesser„included€offense€of€felony€murder€under€part€(a)€of€òòBurnsóó.Ð \¬ ÐÓ  Óòò(2)€Justification€AnalysisóóÐ 4„ ÐÓ  Óà ` àHaving€determined€that€second€degree€murder,€voluntary€manslaughter,€recklessÐ  \ Ðhomicide,€and€criminally€negligent€homicide€are€lesser„included€offenses€of€felony„murder,€we€mustÐ øH Ðnow€resolve€whether€the€evidence€in€this€case€justified€an€instruction€on€any€or€all€of€these€lesser„Ð ä4 Ðincluded€offenses€pursuant€to€òòBurnsóóððs€two„fold€inquiry.Ð Ð  Ðà ` àWe€conclude€that€when€the€evidence€is€viewed€ð ðliberally€in€the€light€most€favorableÐ ¨ø Ðto€the€existence€of€[second€degree€murder,€voluntary€manslaughter,€reckless€homicide,€andÐ ”ä Ðcriminally€negligent€homicide]€without€making€any€judgments€on€the€credibility€of€such€evidence,ððÐ €Ð Ðthere€was€evidence€that€ð ðreasonable€minds€could€acceptðð€as€to€those€lesser„included€offenses.׃j×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô€gX5¤XXxXvÎÔÐ l¼ Ðà ` àMore€specifically,€regarding€the€lesser„included€offense€of€second€degree€murder,€theÐ D!” Ðdefendant€shot€the€lock€off€a€closed€door€and€then€shot€through€a€curtained€window.€€This€conductÐ ."~  Ðresulted€in€the€death€of€the€victim,€who€was€about€to€open€the€door.€€There€was€evidence€that€theÐ #h! Ðhouse€was€well€lit€from€the€inside.€€When€the€evidence€is€liberally€viewed€as€it€relates€to€second„Ð $R" Ðdegree€murder,€a€jury€could€reasonably€conclude€€that€the€defendant€either€saw€the€victim€throughÐ ì$< # Ðthe€partially€opened€curtain€or€saw€the€victimððs€shadow€on€the€curtain,€but,€nevertheless,€heÐ Ö%&!$ Ðchambered€another€shell€in€his€pump€action€shotgun€and€shot€through€the€window,€striking€theÐ À&"% Ðvictim€in€the€neck.€€Viewed€in€this€manner,€this€evidence€would€be€sufficient€to€show€that€theÐ ª'ú"& Ðdefendant€was€aware€that€his€conduct€was€reasonably€certain€to€cause€the€victimððs€death.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð ° ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302€(1997)€(definition€of€knowing);€òòsee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€George€Blake€Kellyóó,Ð šê ÐNo.€01C01„9610„CC„00448,€slip€op.€at€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Oct.€13,€1998)€(example€ofÐ „Ô Ðdifference€between€reckless€and€knowing€conduct;€person€firing€from€inside€windowless€buildingÐ n¾ Ðthrough€open€doorway€who€cannot€see€if€anyone€is€present€acts€recklessly,€while€person€whoÐ X¨ Ðsimilarly€acts€but€who€is€aware€people€are€near€open€door€acts€at€least€knowingly).€€Accordingly,€weÐ B ’ Ðconclude€that€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€not€instruct€the€jury€on€second€degree€murder€as€aÐ , | Ðlesser„included€offense€of€felony€murder.Ð  f Ðà ` àApplying€the€two„step€process€for€determining€whether€an€instruction€should€haveÐ ê :  Ðbeen€given€on€voluntary€manslaughter,€we€conclude€that€in€this€case,€there€was€insufficient€evidenceÐ Ô $  Ðof€provocation.€€The€evidence€showed€that€the€defendant€parked€his€car€away€from€the€house€andÐ ¾  Ðusing€a€bucket€as€support,€peered€into€a€window€before€circling€the€house€and€shooting€through€theÐ ¨ø  Ðback€door.€€The€defendant€testified€to€having€a€single„minded€purpose€of€entering€the€house.€Ð ’â  ÐProvocation€was€not€shown,€and€accordingly,€we€conclude€that€an€instruction€on€voluntaryÐ |Ì  Ðmanslaughter€as€a€lesser„€included€offense€was€not€warranted€by€the€facts€adduced€at€trial.Ð f¶  Ðà ` àAs€with€second€degree€murder,€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€charge€reckless€homicideÐ :Š Ðand€criminally€negligent€homicide€as€lesser„include€offenses€on€the€second€count€was€error.€€TheÐ $t Ðevidence,€viewed€liberally,€supports€the€conclusion€that€the€defendantððs€€ð ðdisregard€forðð€or€hisÐ ^ Ðð ðfailure€to€perceiveðð€the€risks€of€firing€into€the€door€of€a€residence,€which€was€known€by€him€at€theÐ øH Ðvery€least€to€be€occupied,€constituted€a€ð ðgross€deviation€from€the€standard€of€care€that€an€ordinaryÐ â2 Ðperson€would€exercise,ð ð€such€that€he€committed€a€reckless€homicide€or€a€criminally€negligentÐ Ì Ðhomicide.Ð ¶ ÐÓ  Óòò(3)€Harmless€Error€AnalysisóóÐ ŠÚ ÐÓ  ÓÔ€kXX XXgX5¤Ôà ` àÔ€xXvÎX XkXXÔThe€final€question€is€how€to€assess€the€effect€of€the€trial€courtððs€error€in€failing€toÐ ^® Ðinstruct€on€second€degree€murder,€reckless€homicide,€and€criminally€negligent€homicide€as€lesser„Ð Jš Ðincluded€offenses€of€felony€murder.€€The€answer€requires€that€we€wade,€once€again,€into€theÐ 6† Ðsomewhat€rancorous€debate€whether€the€error€complained€of€is€constitutional€or€nonconstitutional.€Ð " r ÐIf€the€error€is€constitutional,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€state€to€prove€harmlessness€beyond€a€reasonableÐ !^ Ðdoubt.€€The€burden€does€not€shift€to€the€state€for€nonconstitutional€error.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,òòState€v.€Harrisóó,Ð ú!J  Ð989€S.W.2d€307,€314„15€(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€742€(Tenn.€1994).€Ð æ"6! ÐMoreover,€the€standard€for€assessing€the€harm€resulting€from€constitutional€error€is€more€exactingÐ Ò#"" Ðthan€the€standard€that€applies€to€nonconstitutional€error.€€Constitutional€error€will€result€in€a€reversalÐ ¾$ # Ðunless€the€reviewing€court€is€convinced€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€error€did€not€affect€theÐ ª%ú $ Ðoutcome€of€the€trial.€€òòChapman€v.€Californiaóó,€386€U.S.€18,€87€S.Ct.€824,€17€L.Ed.2d€705€(1967).€€ByÐ –&æ!% Ðcontrast,€nonconstitutional€error€is€not€reversible€unless€the€error€affirmatively€appears€to€haveÐ ‚'Ò"& Ðaffected€the€result€of€the€trial€on€the€merits,€or€unless€considering€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€errorÐ n(¾#' Ðinvolves€a€substantial€right€which€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment€or€resulted€inÐ Z)ª$( Ðprejudice€to€the€judicial€process.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòHarrisóó,€989€S.W.2d€at€315;€òòNicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€at€742;Ð F*–%) Ðòòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).Ð 2+‚&* Ðà ` àWe€have€concluded€in€the€present€case€that€the€error€is€reversible€regardless€of€whichÐ ° Ðstandard€of€harmless€error€analysis€is€used.€€In€other€words,€we€hold€that€the€defendant€hasÐ œì Ðaffirmatively€shown€that€the€error€ð ðaffected€the€result€of€the€trial€on€the€merits,ðð€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ð ˆØ Ð52(a),€and€that€ð ðconsidering€the€whole€record€error€involving€a€substantial€right€more€probably€thanÐ tÄ Ðnot€affected€the€judgment,ðð€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€However,€we€realize€that€some€panels€of€thisÐ `° Ðcourt€have€taken€the€view€that€it€is€difficult,€if€not€impossible,€for€a€defendant,€who€is€deprived€ofÐ L œ Ða€justified€instruction€on€a€lesser„included€offense,€to€carry€the€burden€laid€upon€him€by€the€above„Ð 8 ˆ Ðquoted€rules.׃d×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Khanh€V.€Leóó,€No.€W1998-00637-CCA-R3-CD,€slip€op.€at€17€(Tenn.Ð $ t ÐCrim.€App.,€Jackson,€Mar.€9,€2000),€òòperm.€app.€filedóó€(Tenn.€Apr.€13,€2000)Ô‡mXÆ`XXxXvÎÔ.€€Ô#†xXvÎXXmXÆ`‘#ÔThus,€in€view€of€theÐ  ` Ðpossibility€of€our€supreme€court€determining€upon€further€appeal€of€this€case€that€harmless€errorÐ ü L  Ðresults€from€the€use€of€the€non„constitutional€standard€of€analysis,€we€are€constrained€to€explain€ourÐ è 8  Ðdetermination€that€a€constitutional€issue€is€at€stake€and€that€the€òòChapmanóó€standard€for€harmless€errorÐ Ô$  Ðanalysis€applies€to€render€the€error€reversible.€€Thus,€we€will€first€explain€our€holding€that€the€non„Ð À  Ðconstitutional€standard€results€in€reversible€error,€and€then€we€will€discuss€the€constitutional€basesÐ ¬ü  Ðfor€requiring€jury€instructions€as€to€applicable€lesser„included€offenses.Ð ˜è  Ðà ` àWe€are€buttressed€in€our€conclusion€that€the€record€reflects€that€the€error,€which€doesÐ pÀ Ðinvolve€a€substantial€right,€ð ðmore€probably€than€not€affected€judgment,ðð€by€the€expert€testimonyÐ \¬ Ðconcerning€the€defendantððs€mental€state€prior€to€and€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€€Dr.€Monet,€theÐ H˜ Ðdefense€psychiatric€expert,€testified€that€at€the€time€of€the€shooting€the€defendant€was€suffering€fromÐ 4„ Ða€severe€major€depression€and€was€suicidal.€€According€to€Dr.€Monet,€there€was€ð ðonly€room€for€oneÐ  p Ðthought€in€his€mind,€and€thatððs€to€kill€himself€before€his€wife,€in€front€of€her.ðð€€Dr.€Zager,€whoÐ  \ Ðtestified€for€the€state€as€an€expert€psychologist,€held€the€opinion€that€at€the€time€of€the€shooting€theÐ øH Ðdefendant€had€a€severe€mental€illness€and€that€he€was€ð ðin€emotional€distress€and€crisis.ðð€€Dr.€ZagerÐ ä4 Ðagreed€that€the€defendantððs€conduct€in€carrying€the€loaded€gun€was€reckless.€€However,€Dr.€ZagerÐ Ð  Ðfurther€testified€that€in€his€opinion€the€defendant€could€understand€and€appreciate€the€wrongfulnessÐ ¼  Ðof€his€action.€€Dr.€Patel,€the€prosecution€psychiatric€e