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€expert,€testified€that€in€his€opinion€the€defendantÐ ¨ø Ðknew€what€he€was€doing;€his€intention€was€to€get€to€his€wife,€and€he€would€get€rid€of€whateverÐ ”ä Ðresistance€he€might€encounter.€€Ð €Ð ÐÔ‡mXÆ`XXxXvÎÔà ` àÔ#†xXvÎXXmXÆ`¹ˆ#ÔThe€jury€heard€this€conflicting€expert€testimony,€and€it€reached€its€own€determinationsÐ X ¨ Ðabout€credibility€in€this€area.€€Yet,€those€determinations€apparently€led€to€the€jury€determining€withÐ D!” Ðregard€to€the€first€count€of€the€indictment€that€the€defendant€is€guilty€only€of€the€lesser„includedÐ 0"€  Ðoffense€of€reckless€homicide.€€While€consistency€in€verdicts€for€multiple€count€indictments€isÐ #l! Ðunnecessary,€òòe.g.óó,€òòWiggins€v.€Stateóó,€498€S.W.2d€92,€93„94€(Tenn.€1973);€òòState€v.€Gennoeóó,€851Ð $X" ÐS.W.2d€833,€836€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€835€S.W.2d€32,€36€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ô$D # Ð1992),€we€cannot€conclude€with€the€slightest€degree€of€confidence€that€had€the€jury€also€beenÐ à%0!$ Ðinstructed€on€any€or€all€of€the€lesser„included€offenses,€with€regard€to€the€second€count€of€theÐ ° Ðindictment,€it€would€have€eschewed€all€of€the€lesser„included€offenses€and€convicted€the€defendantÐ œì Ðof€felony„murder.Ô‡mXÆ`XXxXvÎÔÐ ˆØ ÐÔ#†xXvÎXXmXÆ`C#Ôà ` àThe€testimony€about€the€defendantððs€mental€state€was€more€cogent€than€typicallyÐ `° Ðencountered.€€Based€upon€this€testimony€and€the€first„count€verdict,€we€conclude€€that,€as€to€theÐ L œ Ðsecond€count,€had€the€jury€been€allowed€to€consider€second€degree€murder,€reckless€homicide,€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðcriminally€negligent€homicide,€as€filtered€through€the€expert€testimony,€the€jury€probably€would€haveÐ $ t Ðrejected€felony€murder€in€favor€of€one€or€more€of€these€lesser„included€offenses.Ð  ` Ðà ` àNow,€we€address€the€effect€of€the€error€viewed€as€a€constitutional€deprivation.€Ð è 8  ÐDisconcert€about€how€to€assess€the€erroneous€failure€to€charge€lesser„included€offenses€derives€fromÐ Ô$  Ðthe€supreme€courtððs€opinion€in€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€977€S.W.2d€101€(Tenn.€1998).€€In€that€case,€theÐ À  Ðsupreme€court€granted€permission€to€appeal€to€consider€whether€the€erroneous€failure€to€instruct€theÐ ¬ü  Ðjury€on€a€lesser„included€offense€requires€automatic€reversal€or€whether€it€is€subject€to€harmless€errorÐ ˜è  Ðanalysis.€€For€our€purposes€in€this€case,€it€is€helpful€to€examine€the€context€in€which€the€question€wasÐ „Ô  Ðposed.Ð pÀ Ðà ` àThe€state€conceded€in€òòWilliamsóó€that€the€failure€to€charge€the€lesser„included€offenseÐ H˜ Ðwas€error.€€òòSeeóó€òòWilliamsóó,€977€S.W.2d€at€104.€€The€state€arguedòòóó€that€the€error€in€failing€to€chargeÐ 4„ Ðvoluntary€manslaughter,€as€a€lesser„included€offense,€was€ð ðharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtððÐ  p Ðbecause€the€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€first€degree€murder€even€though€the€jury€was€providedÐ  \ Ðinstructions€on€second€degree€murder€and€reckless€homicide.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€The€defendant€argued€that€anÐ øH Ðautomatic€reversal€was€required€because€the€type€of€constitutional€error€that€occurred€could€neverÐ ä4 Ðbe€treated€as€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€From€these€arguments,€the€parties€in€òòWilliamsóó€were€in€agreementÐ Ð  Ðfirst,€that€error€had€occurred€and€second,€that€the€error€was€constitutional.€€The€positions€of€theÐ ¼  Ðparties€differed€òòonlyóó€with€respect€to€application€of€the€harmless€error€analysis€of€òòChapman€v.Ð ¨ø ÐCaliforniaóó,€386€U.S.€18,€24€87€S.Ct.€824,€828,€17€L.Ed.2d€705€(1967).Ð ”ä ÐÔ‡mXÆ`XXxXvÎÔà ` àÔ#†xXvÎXXmXÆ`–—#ÔThe€òòWilliamsóó€court€held€that€a€trial€courtððs€erroneous€failure€to€charge€on€a€lesser„Ð l¼ Ðincluded€offense€does€not€automatically€result€in€reversal.€€€That€much€is€certain.€€Less€certain,Ð X ¨ Ðthough,€is€how€the€court€in€òòWilliamsóó€then€determined€the€harmfulness€of€the€error;€that€is,€whetherÐ D!” Ðthe€error€is€constitutional€or€non„constitutional.€€At€one€point€in€its€opinion,€the€court€stated,Ð 0"€  ÐÓ XÓÓ °ÓAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€a€trial€courtððs€erroneous€failure€to€instruct€onÐ $X" Ðvoluntary€manslaughter€is€subject€to€harmless€error€analysis.€€Reversal€isÐ ô$D # Ðrequired€if€the€error€affirmatively€appears€to€have€affected€the€result€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðtrial€on€the€merits,€or€in€other€words,€reversal€is€required€if€the€error€moreÐ Ì&"% Ðprobably€than€not€affected€the€judgment€to€the€defendantððs€prejudice.Ð ¸'#& ÐÓ XÙÓÓ °Ñ™ÓòòWilliamsóó,€977€S.W.2d€at€105.Ð )à$( ÐWhen,€however,€the€òòWilliamsóó€court€articulated€its€holding€in€that€case,€it€stated,Ð h+¸&* ÐÓ °ÓÓ XÓAccordingly,€the€trial€courtððs€erroneous€failure€to€charge€voluntaryÐ ° Ðmanslaughter€is€òòharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtóó€because€the€juryððsÐ œì Ðverdict€of€guilt€on€the€greater€offense€of€first€degree€murder€and€itsÐ ˆØ Ðdisinclination€to€consider€the€lesser„included€offense€of€second€degree€murderÐ tÄ Ðclearly€demonstrates€that€it€certainly€would€not€have€returned€a€verdict€onÐ `° Ðvoluntary€manslaughter.Ð L œ ÐÓ XœÓÓ °œÓòòIdóó.€at€106€(emphasis€added).׃f×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð $ t Ðà ` àOur€review€of€the€case€law€and€constitutional€guarantees€persuades€us€that€theÐ ° Ðerroneous€failure€to€instruct€on€lesser„included€offenses€is€constitutional€error€for€which€the€stateÐ œì Ðbears€the€burden€of€proving€harmlessness€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ô‡mXÆ`XXxXvÎÔÐ ˆØ ÐÔ#†xXvÎXXmXÆ` #ÔÔ‡mXÆ`XXxXvÎÔò òó óà ` àÔ#†xXvÎXXmXÆ`ç #ÔFodder€for€the€argument€that€Code€section€40„18„110(a)€is€the€only€source€for€theÐ `° Ðright€to€an€instruction€on€lesser„included€offenses€stems€from€an€equivocal€statement€in€òòWilliamsóó:Ð L œ Ðð ðMoreover,€though€sometimes€described€as€a€constitutional€right,€in€this€State€the€right€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðinstructions€on€lesser€offenses€actually€derives€from€a€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110(a)(1997Ð $ t ÐRepl.).ðð€€òòWilliamsóó,€977€S.W.2d€at€105.€€Also,€in€òòState€v.€Tina€Swindleóó,€___€S.W.3d€___,€No.Ð  ` ÐM1998„00362„SC„R11„CD€(Tenn.,€Nashville,€Aug.€25,€2000),€a€case€in€which€the€defendant€wasÐ ü L  Ðcharged€with€aggravated€sexual€battery,€our€supreme€court€held€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€itÐ è 8  Ðfailed€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€the€lesser„included€offense€of€the€Class€B€misdemeanor€assaultÐ Ô$  Ðdefined€as€ð ðintentional€or€knowing€physical€contact€..€.€.€[which]€a€reasonable€person€would€regardÐ À  Ð.€.€.€as€extremely€offensive€or€provocative.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€___,€slip€op.€at€3;€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð ¬ü  Ð101(a)(3)€(1997).€€The€òòSwindleóó€court€initiated€its€analysis€of€the€lesser„included€offense€issue€byÐ ˜è  Ðreferring€to€Code€section€40„18„110(a)€as€the€mandate€for€the€lesser„included€offense€instructions,Ð „Ô  Ðand€after€finding€error,€it€held€that€ð ð[r]eversal€is€required€[because]€the€error€affirmatively€affectedÐ pÀ Ðthe€result€of€the€trial,€or€.€.€.€the€error€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment€to€the€defendantððsÐ \¬ Ðprejudice.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€___,€slip€op.€at€5.€€The€court€made€no€reference€to€the€òòChapmanóó€standard€forÐ H˜ Ðanalyzing€constitutional€errors.Ð 4„ ÐÔ‡mXÆ`XXxXvÎÔà ` àÔ#†xXvÎXXmXÆ` ¨#ÔÔ€gX5¤XXxXvÎÔOn€the€other€hand,€our€supreme€court€has€not€unequivocally€stated€that€Code€sectionÐ  \ Ðâ â40„18„110(a)€is€the€òòonlyóó€basis€for€entitlement€to€the€instruction.€€Certainly,€constitutional€recognitionÐ öF Ðand€statutory€recognition€of€a€right€afforded€citizens€in€this€state€are€not€mutually€exclusive.€€StatutesÐ ° Ðshould,€can,€and€do€reflect€constitutional€values,€privileges€and€rights.Ð šê Ðâ âà ` àThe€constitutional€underpinning€for€the€right€to€an€instruction€on€lesser„includedÐ n¾ Ðoffense€is€frequently€identified€simply€as€the€right€to€trial€by€jury.€Article€I,€section€6€of€theÐ X¨ ÐTennessee€Constitution€provides€that€ð ðthe€right€of€trial€by€jury€shall€remain€inviolate.ððÔ‡mXÆ`XXgX5¤Ô€€Ô#†gX5¤XXmXÆ`3¬#ÔLess€thanÐ B ’ Ðtwo€months€after€the€opinion€in€òòWilliamsóó€was€released,€the€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Boldenóó,€979Ð , | ÐS.W.2d€587€(Tenn.€1998),€expressly€recognized€that€ð ð[o]ne€purpose€of€the€statute€[ðð€40„18„110(a)]Ð  f Ðis€to€protect€the€right€to€trial€by€jury€by€instructing€the€jury€on€the€elements€of€all€offenses€embracedÐ  P Ðby€the€indictment.ðð€€òòBoldenóó,€979€S.W.2d€at€593.€€The€court€in€òòBoldenóó€cited€òòWilliamsóó€for€theÐ ê :  Ðproposition€that€the€ð ðfailure€to€instruct€on€a€lesser€offense,€however,€may€be€shown€to€be€harmlessÐ Ô $  Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€under€some€circumstances.ðð€€òòId.óóÔ‡mXÆ`XXgX5¤ÔÐ ¾  Ðà ` àÔ#†gX5¤XXmXÆ`R¯#ÔÔ€xXvÎXXgX5¤ÔPre„òòWilliamsóó€case€law€exists€that€recognizes€that€the€failure€to€charge€a€lesser„Ð ’â  Ðincluded€offense€is€a€constitutional€deprivation.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Curtis€J.€Elyóó,€No.€03C01„9806„CC„Ð ~Î  Ð00215,€slip€op.€at€10€n.3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Nov.€4.€1999)€(collecting€and€citingÐ jº  Ðnumerous€cases€before€òòWilliamsóó€that€failure€to€charge€lesser€offense€is€a€constitutional€deprivation).€Ð V¦ ÐIndeed,€the€supreme€court€previously€had€recognized€the€constitutional€nature€of€the€right.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,Ð B’ ÐòòStrader€v.€Stateóó,€362€S.W.2d€224,€230„31€(Tenn.€1962)òòóó€(in€capital€case,€failure€to€charge€lesser„Ð .~ Ðincluded€offenses€deprived€defendant€of€a€ð ðfair€trialðð).Ô‡mXÆ`XXxXvÎÔÐ j Ðà ` àÔ#†xXvÎXXmXÆ`þ²#ÔÔ€gX5¤XXxXvÎÔòòóóIn€addition€to€the€state€constitutional€right€to€a€jury€trial€and€perhaps€the€provisionÐ òB Ðguaranteeing€due€process€of€law,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Const.€Art.€I,€ðð€8,€serving€as€bases€for€instructing€onÐ Ü, Ðlesser„included€offenses,€we€are€persuaded€that€there€is€another€TennesseeÔ‡mXÆ`XXgX5¤Ô€Ô#†gX5¤XXmXÆ`¼´#Ôconstitutional€sourceÐ Æ Ðwhich€has€not€been€discussed€in€the€cases€since€the€disconcert€over€òòWilliamsóó€began,€namely€ArticleÐ ° ÐVI,€section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.Ð šê ÐÔ‡mXÆ`XXgX5¤Ôà ` àÔ#†gX5¤XXmXÆ`çµ#ÔÔ€xXvÎXXgX5¤Ôð ðTennessee€is€one€of€the€states€admitted€to€the€Union€early€in€the€history€of€thisÐ n¾ Ðcountry,€and€at€a€time€when€memories€of€colonial€abuses€were€fresh€in€the€minds€of€the€citizenry.ðð€Ð Zª ÐòòFarris€v.€Stateóó,€535€S.W.2d€608,€617€(Tenn.€1976)(Harbison,€J.,€dissenting).€Ô‡mXÆ`XXxXvÎÔ€Ô#†xXvÎXXmXÆ`Œ·#ÔArticle€VI,€Section€9Ð F– Ðof€the€Tennessee€Constitution€targets€one€such€abuse.€€It€commands,€ð ðThe€Judges€shall€not€chargeÐ 2 ‚ Ðjuries€with€respect€to€matter€of€fact,€but€may€state€the€testimony€and€declare€the€law.ðð€€This€provisionÐ !n Ðwas€part€of€the€original€Tennessee€Constitution€of€1796.€€Tenn.€Const.€of€1796,€art.€V,€ðð€V.€€SimplyÐ  "Z  Ðstated,€this€constitutional€imperative€means€that€the€trial€judge€decides€the€law€and€that€the€juryÐ ö"F! Ðdecides€the€facts.€€The€reason€for€the€constitutional€division€of€labor€between€the€trial€court€and€theÐ â#2" Ðjury€was€to€counteract€the€practice€of€trial€judges€intimating€their€views€of€what€the€verdict€of€theÐ Î$ # Ðjury€should€be.Ð º% !$ ÐÓ °ÓÓ XÓIt€was€permissible€at€the€common€law€for€trial€judges€to€express€an€opinionÐ ’'â"& Ðas€to€the€credibility€of€a€witness€or€as€to€the€weight€of€certain€evidence.€Ð ~(Î#' ÐParticularly€did€judges€claim€the€right€to€sum€up€the€evidence€as€a€whole€andÐ j)º$( Ðexpress€an€opinion€thereon.€€It€was€the€intent€of€the€framers€of€theÐ V*¦%) Ðconstitution€that€this€power€which€had€been€shamefully€abused€should€beÐ B+’&* Ðtaken€away€from€the€judges.€€Hence€the€readiness€of€appellate€courts€toÐ .,~'+ ÐÑp³/Ñâ pâÑTRY,3Ø' LetterY,3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letter 3Ø' LetterTÑâ pâÑ  Ñreverse€the€judgment€where€the€trial€judge€has€disregarded€this€constitutionalÐ ° Ðprohibition€against€charging,€guiding,€or€instructing€the€jury€regarding€matterÐ œì Ðof€fact.Ð ˆØ ÐÓ X »ÓÓ °ÿºÓJ.€Higgins€&€A.€Crownover,€Jr.,€òòTennessee€Procedure€in€Law€Cases€(A€Treatise€Setting€Forth€theÐ `° ÐPrinciples,€Pleadings,€Practice€and€Procedure€in€Lawsuits)óó,€ðð€1424,€at€534„35€(1937).Ð L œ Ðà ` àIn€òòIvey€v.€Hodgesóó,€23€Tenn.€154€(1843),€the€impetus€òòóófor€this€constitutional€right€wasÐ $ t Ðdescribed€in€the€following€fashion:Ð  ` ÐÓ °ÓÓ XÓThis€provision€arose€out€of€the€jealousy,€with€which€our€ancestors€alwaysÐ è 8  Ðlooked€upon€any€attempt€on€the€part€of€the€courts€to€interfere€with€theÐ Ô$  Ðpeculiar€province€of€the€jury,€the€right€to€determine€what€facts€are€proved€inÐ À  Ða€cause,€and€to€put€a€stop€to€the€practice€of€ð ðsumming€up,ðð€which€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðconsidered€a€dangerous€infraction€of€the€trial€by€jury,€and€an€invasion€of€theirÐ ˜è  Ðprovince,€which€is€prohibited€by€express€terms€in€this€section€of€theÐ „Ô  ÐConstitution.Ð pÀ ÐÓ XÁÓÓ °‚ÁÓ23€Tenn.€at€155„56.€€òòSeeóó€òòHooper€v.€Stateóó,€325€S.W.2d€561,€563€(Tenn.€1959)(ð ð[T]his€Section€wasÐ H˜ Ðput€in€our€Constitution€to€prohibit€a€practice€of€ððsumming€upðð€as€was€practiced€€in€Great€Britain.ðð);Ð 4„ ÐòòTyrus€v.€Kansas€City,€Ft.€S.€&€M.R.€Co.óó,€114€Tenn.€579,€86€S.W.€1074,€1075€(1905);€òòWarren€v.Ð  p ÐStateóó,€44€Tenn.€130,€135€€(1867)€(ð ðThis€is€a€wise€and€sacred€provision,€placed€in€the€fundamentalÐ  \ Ðlaw€to€guard€and€protect€the€right€of€trial€by€jury,€and€the€courts€cannot€transcend€it€or€disregard€it.ðð).Ð øH Ðà ` àOne€of€the€earlier€and€better€expositions€of€how€this€constitutional€right€is€to€beÐ Ð  Ðobserved€and€is€to€be€implemented€is€found€in€òòPoole€v.€Stateóó,€61€Tenn.€289€(1872).€€ð ðIt€is€also€theÐ ¼  Ðduty€of€the€[trial€judge],ðð€writes€the€supreme€court€in€òòPooleóó,€ð ðto€define€in€his€charge€all€the€offensesÐ ¨ø Ðembraced€in€an€indictment€for€this€crime.ðð€€The€supreme€court€continued,Ð ”ä ÐÓ °ÓÓ XÓÓ-„°¸ ˜X°,X°` ˜X-ÓThe€jury€is€the€exclusive€judge€of€the€facts,€the€Court€is€a€witness€to€it€of€theÐ l¼ Ðlaw.€€When€the€jury€has€heard€the€facts,€it€is€for€it€to€say€what€offense,€if€any,Ð X ¨ Ðhas€been€committed€against€the€law.€€However€plain€it€may€be€to€the€mind€ofÐ D!” Ðthe€Court€that€one€certain€offense€has€been€committed€and€none€other,€heÐ 0"€  Ðmust€not€confine€himself€in€his€charge€to€that€offense.€€When€he€does€so€heÐ #l! Ðinvades€the€province€of€the€jury,€whose€peculiar€duty€it€is€to€ascertain€theÐ $X" Ðgrade€of€offense.€€However€clear€it€may€be,€the€Court€should€never€decide€theÐ ô$D # Ðfacts,€but€must€leave€them€unembarrassed€to€the€jury.Ð à%0!$ ÐÓ XŠÈÓÓ °|ÈÓÓ1°,X°` ˜X„°¸ ˜X˜È1ÓòòPooleóó,€61€Tenn.€at€294.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€32€(Tenn.€1996)€(purpose€of€Article€VI,Ð ¸'#& Ððð€9€is€to€preserve€the€juryððs€role€as€a€finder€of€fact);€òòCleckner€v.€Daleóó,€719€S.W.2d€535,€542€(Tenn.Ð ¤(ô#' Ðâ âCt.€App.€1986)€(trial€courtððs€comments€ran€afoul€of€Article€VI,€ðð€9).Ð )à$( Ðà ` àThe€significance€of€Article€VI,€Section€9€is€further€highlighted€by€its€inclusion€in€theÐ ° Ðâ âTennessee€Constitution€in€addition€to€the€constitutional€guarantee€of€Article€I,€Section€6€that€ð ðtheÐ œì Ðright€of€trial€by€jury€shall€remain€inviolate,ðð€the€constitutional€guarantee€of€Article€I,€Section€9€thatÐ ˆØ Ðð ðin€all€criminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€hath€the€right€.€.€.€in€prosecutions€by€indictment€orÐ tÄ Ðpresentment,€[to]€a€speedy€public€trial,€by€an€impartial€jury,ðð€and€the€constitutional€guarantee€ofÐ `° ÐArticle€I,€Section€19€that€ð ðthe€jury€shall€have€a€right€to€determine€the€law€and€the€facts,€under€theÐ L œ Ðdirection€of€the€court.ðð€€Article€VI,€Section€9€is€much€more€than€constitutional€overkill;€the€framersÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€the€Tennessee€Constitution€correctly€and€prudently€recognized€that€the€right€to€trial€by€jury€wouldÐ $ t Ðbe€a€hollow€guarantee€without€the€further€constitutional€protection€against€trial€courts€invading€theÐ  ` Ðjuryððs€domain€to€determine€what€facts€are€proved.Ð ü L  Ðà ` àWhen€a€lesser„included€offense€instruction€is€erroneously€omitted,€the€juryððs€fact„Ð Ô$  Ðfinding€role€is€usurped.€€In€òòStevenson€v.€United€Statesóó,€162€U.S.€313,€323,€16€S.Ct.€839,€843€(1896),Ð À  Ðthe€Supreme€Court€explained,Ð ¬ü  ÐÓ °ÓÓ XÓA€judge€may€be€entirely€satisfied€from€the€whole€evidence€in€the€case,€thatÐ „Ô  Ðthe€person€doing€the€killing€was€actuated€by€malice;€that€he€was€not€in€anyÐ pÀ Ðsuch€passion€as€to€lower€the€grade€of€the€crime€from€murder€to€manslaughterÐ \¬ Ðby€reason€of€any€absence€of€malice;€and€yet€if€there€be€any€evidence€fairlyÐ H˜ Ðtending€to€bear€upon€the€issue€of€manslaughter,€it€is€the€province€of€the€juryÐ 4„ Ðto€determine€from€all€the€evidence€what€the€condition€of€mind€was,€and€to€sayÐ  p Ðwhether€the€crime€was€murder€or€manslaughter.Ð  \ ÐÓ XlÓÓÓ °^ÓÓòòSeeóó€òòBeck€v.€Alabamaóó,€447€U.S.€625,€100€S.Ct.€2382€(1980)€(sentence€of€death€may€not€beÐ ä4 Ðconstitutionally€imposed€when€the€jury€was€not€permitted€to€consider€a€verdict€of€guilt€of€a€lesser„Ð Ð  Ðincluded€noncapital€offense€and€the€evidence€would€have€supported€such€a€verdict);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòSchadÐ ¼  Ðv.€Arizonaóó,€501€U.S.€624,€647„48,€111€S.Ct.€2491,€2505€(1991)€(aim€of€rule€in€òòBeck€v.€Alabamaóó€wasÐ ¨ø Ðð ðto€eliminate€the€distortion€of€the€fact„finding€process€that€is€created€when€the€jury€is€forced€into€anÐ ”ä Ðall„or„nothing€choiceðð);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòLittle€v.€Stateóó,€65€Tenn.€491,€496€(1873)€(declining€to€instruct€juryÐ €Ð Ðas€to€manslaughter€held€to€be€equivalent€of€telling€jury€that€the€defendant€was€guilty,€if€at€all,€ofÐ l¼ Ðnothing€less€than€second€degree€murder€and€was€an€invasion€of€the€juryððs€ð ðprovinceðð).Ð X ¨ Ðà ` àWe€perceive€no€valid€distinction€between€telling€the€jury€that€it€is€not€receiving€anÐ 0"€  Ðinstruction€on€lesser„included€offenses€and€simply€not€giving€a€lesser„included€offense€instruction.€Ð #l! ÐIn€either€event,€the€message€to€the€jury€is€clear;€in€the€trial€courtððs€opinion€if€the€defendant€is€guilty,Ð $X" Ðthe€crime€cannot€fall€below€whatever€offense€that€is€defined€in€the€charge€to€the€jury.Ð ô$D # ÐÔ‡nXÆ`XXxXvÎÔà ` àÔ#†xXvÎXXnXÆ`êÛ#ÔWe€are€not€suggesting€that€a€violation€of€Article€VI,€Section€9€requires€an€automaticÐ Ì&"% Ðreversal€of€a€defendantððs€conviction.€€òòóóTennessee€courts€have€applied€the€òòChapmanóó€constitutionalÐ ¸'#& Ðharmless€error€analysis€to€both€state€and€federal€constitutional€errors.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€347€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Cookóó,€816€S.W.2d€322,€326€(Tenn.1991).€Ð )à$( ÐòòóóFor€a€violation€of€Article€VI,€section€9,€we€believe€that€the€error€is€reversible€unless€the€state€canÐ |*Ì%) Ðdemonstrate€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€error€did€not€affect€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€We€doÐ h+¸&* Ðnot€perceive€that€our€supreme€court€intended€to€diminish€the€earlier€courtsðð€use€of€Article€VI,€sectionÐ ° Ð9.€€In€our€view,€it€mandates€jury€instructions€as€to€lesser„included€offense.Ð œì Ðà ` àRegardless€of€the€precise€nature€or€number€of€constitutional€provisions€whichÐ tÄ Ðestablish€the€right,€we€believe€the€right€has€a€constitutional€basis,€and€we€are€persuaded€that,€in€thisÐ `° Ðcase,€the€state€has€failed€to€show€that€the€error€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð L œ Ðà ` àHaving€determined€that€prejudicial€error€occurred,€we€must€now€determine€whetherÐ $ t Ðwe€should€notice€the€error€as€plain€error.€€Our€test€for€analyzing€plain€error€was€developed€in€òòStateÐ  ` Ðv.€Adkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€626,€641„41€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€The€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.Ð ü L  ÐDonald€Ray€Smithóó,€ð"ð€S.W.3d€ð"ð,€No.€W1998„00156„SC„R11„CD€(Tenn.€2000),€adopted€this€testÐ è 8  Ðas€providing€ð ða€clear€and€meaningful€standard€for€considering€whether€a€trial€error€rises€to€the€levelÐ Ô$  Ðof€plain€error€in€the€absence€of€an€objection.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Five€factors€are€considered€in€evaluating€plainÐ À  Ðerror,€they€are:Ð ¬ü  ÐÒ°ÒÒ°Ò(a)€the€record€must€clearly€establish€what€occurred€in€the€trial€court;€€(b)€a€clear€andÐ „Ô  Ðunequivocal€rule€of€law€must€have€been€breached;€(c)€a€substantial€right€of€theÐ pÀ Ðaccused€must€have€been€adversely€affected;€(d)€the€accused€did€not€waive€the€issueÐ \¬ Ðfor€tactical€reasons;€and€(e)€consideration€of€the€error€is€ð ðnecessary€to€do€substantialÐ H˜ Ðjustice.ððÐ 4„ ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒòòAdkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€at€641„42.Ð  \ Ðà ` àBased€upon€the€concerns€we€expressed€above€in€determining€that€the€error€was€notÐ ä4 Ðharmless,€we€conclude€that€it€is€also€plain€error.€€Above€we€have€reached€conclusions€which€supportÐ Ð  Ðthe€application€of€the€first€four€òòAdkissonóó€factors.€€We€conclude,€as€well,€that€the€fifth€factor,€thatÐ ¼  Ðconsideration€of€the€error€is€necessary€to€do€substantial€justice,€is€equally€applicable.Ð ¨ø Ðà ` àAccordingly,€we€consider€the€trial€courtððs€error€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€theÐ €Ð Ðlesser„included€offenses€of€felony€murder,€despite€the€omission€of€the€issue€from€the€motion€for€aÐ l¼ Ðnew€trial.€€The€defendantððs€felony€murder€conviction€on€the€second€count€of€the€indictment,Ð X ¨ Ðtherefore,€must€be€reversed,€and€the€case€is€remanded€for€a€new€trial€on€the€second€count.Ð D!” Ðòòb.€Instruction€on€Diminished€CapacityóóÐ #l! Ðà ` àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€using€his€special€instructionÐ ô$D # Ðon€diminished€capacity.€€The€requested€instruction€provided,Ð à%0!$ ÐÓ °ÓÓ XÓ€€€€€€€In€Tennessee,€no€person€may€be€convicted€of€a€criminal€offense€unlessÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€culpable€mental€state€required€is€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐEvidence€which€tends€to€prove€or€disprove€the€required€mental€state€isÐ )à$( Ðrelevant€and€generally€admissible€under€Tennessee€law.€€The€defendant€hasÐ |*Ì%) Ðintroduced€psychiatric€testimony€aimed€at€negating€the€requisite€culpableÐ h+¸&* Ðmental€state.€€This€psychiatric€testimony€must€demonstrate€that€theÐ ° Ðdefendantððs€inability€to€form€the€requisite€culpable€mental€state€was€theÐ œì Ðproduct€of€a€mental€disease€or€defect€and€not€just€a€particular€emotional€stateÐ ˆØ Ðor€mental€condition.€€You€shall€consider€the€expertððs€psychiatric€evidenceÐ tÄ Ðsolely€for€the€purpose€of€negating€the€existence€of€the€culpable€mental€stateÐ `° Ðrequired€to€establish€the€criminal€offense€for€which€the€defendant€is€beingÐ L œ Ðtried.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÓ XQëÓÓ °CëÓà ` àA€trial€court€is€not€required€to€give€special€instructions€when€jury€instructions€are€full,Ð  ` Ðfair,€and€accurate€statements€of€the€law.€€òòState€v.€Mannóó,€959€S.W.2d€503,€521€(Tenn.€1997).€€TheÐ ü L  Ðtrial€courtððs€denial€of€a€special€request€is€not€error€where€the€trial€court's€instructions€on€a€matter€areÐ è 8  Ðproper.€€òòState€v.€Vannóó,€976€S.W.2d€93,€114€(Tenn.€1998).€€The€question€becomes€whether€theÐ Ô$  Ðinstructions€given€the€jury€were€proper,€in€light€of€the€diminished€capacity€evidence€raised€by€theÐ À  Ðdefendant.Ð ¬ü  Ðà ` àOur€supreme€court€recognized€that€ð ðdiminished€capacity€is€not€an€enumerated€defenseÐ „Ô  Ðunder€the€1989€revision€of€the€criminal€code.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679,€689€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð pÀ ÐHowever,€the€court€also€observed€ð ðthat€the€negation€of€an€element€of€a€criminal€offense€is€recognizedÐ \¬ Ðas€a€defense€in€Tennessee.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„203).€€Further,€the€court€agreedÐ H˜ Ðwith€the€conclusion€ð ðthat€a€defendant's€capacity€to€form€the€requisite€mental€state€to€commit€anÐ 4„ Ðoffense€is€an€issue€in€criminal€prosecutions€because€the€general€criminal€law€in€Tennessee€providesÐ  p Ðthat€ðð[n]o€person€may€be€convicted€of€an€offense€unless€.€.€.€[t]he€culpable€mental€state€required€isÐ  \ Ðproven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðððð€€òòId.óó€(quoting€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-11-201(a)(2)).€Ð øH ÐAdditionally,€this€court€has€often€stated€the€rule€that€ð ðdiminished€capacity€is€not€a€defense€capableÐ ä4 Ðof€excusing€or€defeating€a€criminal€charge€in€Tennessee.ðð€€òòState€v.€Groseóó,€982€S.W.2d€349,€353Ð Ð  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Ð ¼  Ðà ` àIn€òòGroseóó,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder,€and€he€alleged€that€theÐ ”ä Ðstate€failed€to€prove€that€he€had€the€requisite€mental€state€because€he€introduced€proof€that€he€hadÐ €Ð Ðconsumed€alcohol€and€drugs€before€shooting€the€victim.€€òòId.óó€at€352.€€This€court€found€the€evidenceÐ l¼ Ðsufficient€to€support€the€conviction.€€òòId.óó€at€353.€€The€state€presented€evidence€showing€theÐ X ¨ Ðdefendantððs€intent,€and€the€jury€resolved€the€question€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòId.óó€€The€defendant€inÐ D!” ÐòòGroseóó€also€complained€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€instructing€the€jury€on€diminished€capacity.€Ð 0"€  ÐòòId.óó€€Grose€introduced€evidence€of€his€diminished€mental€abilities€through€both€expert€and€nonexpertÐ #l! Ðwitnesses.€€òòId.óó€at€354.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€on€the€proper€òòmens€reaóó€necessary€to€findÐ $X" ÐGrose€guilty€of€first€degree€murder.€€òòId.óó€€This€court€held€that€the€trial€court€did€not€have€a€duty€toÐ ô$D # Ðinstruct€the€jury€that€the€defendant's€diminished€capacity€could€be€considered€in€determining€whetherÐ à%0!$ Ðhe€was€capable€of€forming€the€necessary€mental€intent€for€first€degree€murder.€€òòId.óó€€Ð Ì&"% Ðà ` àThis€court€held€similarly€in€òòState€v.€Rutherfordóó,€876€S.W.2d€118€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¤(ô#' Ð1993).€€Rutherfordòòóó€was€mentally€retarded,€and€this€court€determined€that€the€effect€that€theÐ )à$( Ðð ðdefendantððs€mental€retardation€would€have€on€his€ability€to€form€the€culpable€mental€state€was€justÐ |*Ì%) Ðanother€circumstance€for€the€jury€to€consider€in€determining€if€the€defendant€in€fact€possessed€theÐ h+¸&* Ðrequired€mental€state.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€121.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€on€the€òòmens€reaóó€for€secondÐ ° Ðdegree€murder€by€charging€it€with€the€legal€description€of€ð ðknowing.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€120.€€This€court€heldÐ œì Ðthat€this€instruction€was€proper€and€no€further€special€instructions€were€necessary€because€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendantððs€mental€condition.€€òòId.óó€at€121.Ð tÄ Ðà ` àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€trial€court€essentially€followed€Tennessee€Criminal€Pattern€JuryÐ L œ ÐInstruction€42.22€in€instructing€the€jury€on€considering€evidence€of€mental€state.€€The€instructionÐ 8 ˆ Ðgiven€to€the€jury€reads,Ð $ t ÐÓ* °,X›X°,X°` ˜X*ÓÓ °Óà0  àThe€state€must€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€culpable€mental€state€ofÐ ü L  Ðthe€accused.€€Culpable€mental€state€means€the€state€of€mind€of€the€accused€atÐ è 8  Ðthe€time€of€the€offense.€€This€means€that€you€must€consider€all€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðevidence€to€determine€the€state€of€mind€of€the€accused€at€the€time€of€theÐ À  Ðcommission€of€the€offense.€€The€state€of€mind€which€the€state€must€prove€isÐ ¬ü  Ðcontained€in€the€elements€of€the€offense(s)€as€outlined€in€these€instructionsÐ ˜è  Ð[above][below].Ð„Ô xx Ðà0  àIn€this€case,€you€have€heard€evidence€that€the€defendant€might€have€sufferedÐ \¬ Ðfrom€a€mental€[disease][defect][condition]€which€could€have€affected€hisÐ H˜ Ðcapacity€to€form€the€culpable€mental€state€required€to€commit€a€particularÐ 4„ Ðoffense.Ð pxx Ðà0  àIf€you€find€from€the€evidence€that€the€defendantððs€capacity€to€form€a€culpableÐ øH Ðmental€state€may€have€been€affected,€then€you€must€determine€beyond€aÐ ä4 Ðreasonable€doubt€what€the€mental€state€of€the€defendant€was€at€the€time€of€theÐ Ð  Ðcommission€of€the€offense€to€determine€of€which,€if€any,€offense€he€is€guilty.м xx ÐÓ.°,X°` ˜X°,X›Xh.ÓÓ °’Óà ` àThe€jury€heard€evidence€of€diminished€capacity€presented€by€the€defendant,€and€itÐ ”ä Ðfound€that€the€defendant€possessed€the€òòmens€reaóó€required€to€convict€for€each€offense.€€Just€as€inÐ €Ð ÐòòGroseóó€and€òòRutherfordóó,€the€trial€court€in€this€case€did€not€provide€any€special€instructions€regardingÐ l¼ Ðdiminished€capacity.€€Moreover,€the€special€instruction€that€the€defendant€requested€did€not€refer€toÐ X ¨ Ðð ðdiminished€capacity.ðð€€The€defendant€never€identifies€in€what€respects€the€jury€charge€actually€givenÐ D!” Ðwas€inferior€to€the€special€request.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court's€instruction€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðlaw€in€this€case€was€sufficient€to€incorporate€the€defendantððs€request.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð #l! Ðòòc.€Mental€Disease€or€DefectóóÐ ô$D # Ðà ` àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€instructing€the€jury€that€a€mentalÐ Ì&"% Ðdisease€or€defect€by€itself€is€not€a€defense.€€He€argues€that€it€would€be€a€defense€if€the€mental€diseaseÐ ¸'#& Ðor€defect€caused€him€to€not€understand€what€he€was€doing€or€to€not€understand€that€what€he€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðâ âdoing€was€wrong.€€Ð )à$( Ðà ` àA€trial€court€has€a€duty€to€give€a€complete€charge€of€the€law€applicable€to€the€factsÐ ° Ðâ âof€the€case.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-18-110(a);€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€519€S.W.2d€789,€792€(Tenn.Ð œì Ð1975).€€We€must€review€the€entire€charge€and€only€invalidate€it€if,€when€read€as€a€whole,€it€fails€toÐ ˆØ Ðfairly€submit€the€legal€issues€or€misleads€the€jury€as€to€the€applicable€law.€€òòState€v.€Forbesóó,€918Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€431,€447€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Phippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€138,€142€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð `° Ð1994).Ð L œ Ðà ` àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€defendant€complains€of€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€on€theÐ $ t Ðaffirmative€defense€for€insanity.€€The€instruction€essentially€followed€Tennessee€Criminal€PatternÐ  ` ÐJury€Instruction€40.16(b).€€The€instruction€given€to€the€jury€reads,Ð ü L  ÐÓ* °,X›X°,X°` ˜X*ÓÓ °ÓÓ XÓThe€Defendant€has€raised€the€defense€that€he€was€insane€at€the€time€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðcommission€of€the€offense.Ð À  ÐA€person€is€not€responsible€for€criminal€conduct€if,€at€the€time€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðcommission€of€the€acts€constituting€the€offense,€the€person,€as€a€result€of€aÐ „Ô  Ðsevere€mental€disease€or€defect,€was€unable€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulnessÐ pÀ Ðof€such€personððs€acts.€€A€mental€disease€or€defect€by€itself€is€not€a€defense.€Ð \¬ ÐThe€terms€ð ðmental€disease€or€defectðð€do€not€include€any€abnormalityÐ H˜ Ðmanifested€only€by€repeated€criminal€or€otherwise€anti„social€behavior.Ð 4„ ÐThe€defendant€has€the€burden€of€proving€the€defense€of€insanity.€€For€you€toÐ  \ Ðreturn€a€verdict€of€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity,€the€defendant€must€proveÐ øH Ðboth€of€the€following€things€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence:Ð ä4 Ð(1)€[he][she]€had€a€severe€mental€disease€or€defect€at€the€time€that€the€actsÐ ¼  Ðconstituting€the€crime€were€committed;€andÐ ¨ø Ð(2)€that€as€a€result€of€this€severe€mental€disease€or€defect€he€was€not€able€toÐ €Ð Ðunderstand€what€he€was€doing,€or€to€understand€that€what€he€was€doing€wasÐ l¼ Ðwrong.€Ð X ¨ ÐÓ X‚ÓÓ °tÓÓ.°,X°` ˜X°,X›XJ.Óà ` àSection€39„11„501€of€the€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€describes€the€ð ðinsanityðð€defenseÐ 0"€  Ðand€provides€that€a€defendant€has€an€affirmative€defense€if,Ð #l! ÐÓ* °,X›X°,X°` ˜X*ÓÓ °ÓÓ XÓat€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€acts€constituting€the€offense,€theÐ ô$D # Ðdefendant,€as€a€result€of€a€severe€mental€disease€or€defect,€was€unable€toÐ à%0!$ Ðappreciate€the€nature€or€wrongfulness€of€such€defendant's€acts.€€MentalÐ Ì&"% Ðdisease€or€defect€does€not€otherwise€constitute€a€defense.€€The€defendant€hasÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€burden€of€proving€the€defense€of€insanity€by€clear€and€convincingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðâ âevidence.Ð )à$( ÐÑe³/$Ñâ eâÑTRY,3Ø' LetterY,3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letter 3Ø' LetterTÑâ eâÑ  ÑÓ XFÓÓ °8ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501(a)€(1997).€€Ó.°,X°` ˜X°,X›X.Óà À àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€defendant€argues€that€theÐ ° Ðâ âstatement,€ð ða€mental€disease€or€defect€by€itself€is€not€a€defense,ðð€is€incorrect€and€misleading€asÐ œì Ðcompared€to€the€language€in€section€39„11„501(a)€that€a€ð ð[m]ental€disease€or€defect€does€notÐ ˆØ Ðotherwise€constitute€a€defense.ðð€€We€disagree.€€Taken€in€context,€this€statement,€in€conjunction€withÐ tÄ Ðthe€remainder€of€the€instruction,€is€a€proper€statement€of€the€law€as€specified€in€Code€section€39„11„Ð `° Ð501(a)€and€is€not€misleading.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€has€no€merit.Ð L œ Ðòòd.€Written€Instructions€Given€to€the€Jury€had€Portions€Crossed€OutóóÐ $ t Ðà ` àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€written€instructions€given€to€the€jury€were€totallyÐ ü L  Ðconfusing€to€the€jury€and€prejudicial€because,€rather€than€retyping€the€instructions,€the€trial€courtÐ è 8  Ðcrossed€out€inapplicable€passages€and€sections.€€The€defendant€argues€that€it€would€have€beenÐ Ô$  Ðimpossible,€despite€curative€instructions,€for€the€jury€to€ignore€the€marked€through€and€crossed€outÐ À  Ðpassages.€€In€support€of€this€argument,€the€defendant€relies€upon€Rule€30(c)€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÐ ¬ü  Ðof€Criminal€Procedure.Ð ˜è  Ðà ` àRule€30(c)€provides,€"[E]very€word€of€the€judge's€instructions€shall€be€reduced€toÐ pÀ Ðwriting€before€being€given€to€the€jury."€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€30(c).€€Failure€to€follow€this€rule,€whileÐ \¬ Ðerror,€is€not€reversible€unless€it€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð H˜ Ð36(b);€òòState€v.€Gormanóó,€628€S.W.2d€739,€740€(Tenn.€1982).€€The€form€of€the€instructions€is€not€asÐ 4„ Ðimportant€as€their€content.€€It€is€not€error€for€part€of€the€charge€to€be€handwritten€while€the€remainderÐ  p Ðis€typewritten.€€òòState€v.€Tysonóó,€603€S.W.2d€748,€754-55€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€Our€supremeÐ  \ Ðcourt€recognized€in€òòState€v.€Cravensóó,€764€S.W.2d€754€(Tenn.€1989),€that€the€reversal€in€òòState€v.Ð øH ÐMartinóó,€702€S.W.2d€560€(Tenn.€1985),€was€for€the€content€of€the€instructions,€not€the€form.€€òòCravensóó,Ð ä4 Ð764€S.W.2d€at€756€(holding€that€the€form€of€the€instructions,€although€not€as€clear€as€directed€byÐ Ð  ÐòòMartinóó,€did€not€warrant€reversal).€€Ð ¼  Ðà ` àFurthermore,€the€defendant€did€not€object€to€the€form€of€the€instruction€and€agreedÐ ”ä Ðthat€a€curative€instruction€should€be€given.€€Without€an€objection€or€a€special€request€tendered,€issuesÐ €Ð Ðregarding€the€form€or€fullness€of€jury€instructions€are€ordinarily€waived€unless€there€is€plain€error.€Ð l¼ ÐòòState€v.€Cravensóó,€764€S.W.2d€754,€756„57€(Tenn.€1989).Ð X ¨ Ðà ` àWe€have€reviewed€the€written€instructions€that€were€provided€to€the€jury€in€this€case.€Ð 0"€  ÐThis€jury€charge€consists€of€a€series€of€printed,€pattern€instructions€that€reference€various€sectionsÐ #l! Ðof€the€Tennessee€Criminal€Pattern€Jury€Instructions.€€On€ten€of€the€printed€pages,€the€trial€courtÐ $X" Ðcrossed€out€certain€language€that€consisted€mostly€of€definitions€and€elements€of€the€offenses€thatÐ ô$D # Ðdid€not€apply.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€to€ignore€the€crossed€out€sections.€€The€presumptionÐ à%0!$ Ðis€that€the€jury€followed€instructions€given€by€the€trial€court.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòSpicer€v.€Stateóó,€12€S.W.3dÐ Ì&"% Ð438,€449€n.14€(Tenn.€2000);€òòState€v.€Nesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€872,€885€(Tenn.€1998).Ð ¸'#& Ðà ` àThere€is€no€indication€that€the€jurors€in€this€case€did€not€follow€the€instructions,€andÐ )à$( Ðwe€see€no€prejudicial€error.€€We€would,€however,€caution€against€such€a€practice€in€the€future.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐProviding€written€instructions€to€the€jury€with€blackened€out€portions€is€ð ðriskyðð€at€best€becauseÐ h+¸&* ÐÑq³/%Ñâ qâÑTRY,3Ø' LetterY,3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letter 3Ø' LetterTÑâ qâÑ  Ñprejudicial€material€might€be€sent€to€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòSantana€v.€Stateóó,€548€So.2d€293€(Fla.€App.€4€Dist.Ð ° Ð1989).Ð œì ÐòòÓ  ÓV.€Writ€of€Error€Coram€NobisóóÐ tÄ ÐÓ.Óà ` àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€petition€for€errorÐ L œ Ðòòcoram€nobisóó€based€on€the€recanted€testimony€of€his€former€wife.€€A€writ€of€erroròò€coramóó€òònobisóó€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðavailable€to€a€defendant€in€a€criminal€prosecution.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-26-105€(1997);Ð $ t ÐòòNewsome€v.€Stateóó,€995€S.W.2d€129,€133€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998);€òòState€v.€Hartóó,€911€S.W.2d€371,Ð  ` Ð374€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€However,€the€writ€is€an€exceedingly€narrow€remedy€which€isÐ ü L  Ðappropriate€only€when€€the€defendant€was€not€at€fault€for€not€presenting€ð ðnewly€discovered€evidenceÐ è 8  Ðrelating€to€matters€which€were€litigated€at€the€trial€if€the€judge€determines€that€such€evidence€mayÐ Ô$  Ðhave€resulted€in€a€different€judgment,€had€it€been€presented€at€the€trial.ðð€€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ À  Ð40-26-105;€€òòHartóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€374òòóó.€€Ð ¬ü  Ðà ` àIn€òòState€v.€Mixonóó,€983€S.W.2d€661€(Tenn.€1999),€our€supreme€court€addressed€theÐ „Ô  Ðwrit€of€error€òòcoramóó€òònobisóó.€€The€court€agreed€with€this€courtððs€rule€Ð pÀ ÐÓ* °,X›X°,X°` ˜X*ÓÓ °ÓÓ XÓthat€a€new€trial€should€be€granted€upon€the€basis€of€newly€discoveredÐ H˜ Ðrecanted€testimony€only€if:€€(1)€the€trial€court€is€reasonably€well€satisfied€thatÐ 4„ Ðthe€testimony€given€by€the€material€witness€was€false€and€the€new€testimonyÐ  p Ðis€true;€€(2)€the€defendant€was€reasonably€diligent€in€discovering€the€newÐ  \ Ðevidence,€or€was€surprised€by€the€false€testimony,€or€was€unable€to€know€ofÐ øH Ðthe€falsity€of€the€testimony€until€after€the€trial;€€and€(3)€the€jury€might€haveÐ ä4 Ðreached€a€different€conclusion€had€the€truth€been€told.€€Ð Ð  ÐÓ X†3ÓÓ °x3ÓÓ.°,X°` ˜X°,X›XN3.ÓòòMixonóó,€983€S.W.2d€at€672„73€and€n.17.€€On€appeal,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€will€not€be€setÐ ¨ø Ðaside€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-26-105;€òòState€v.€Hartóó,€911€S.W.2dÐ ”ä Ð371,€375€òòóó(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð €Ð Ðà ` àIn€the€case€at€bar,€Jeanne€Beth€recanted€her€trial€testimony€at€a€post„trial€evidentiaryÐ X ¨ Ðhearing.€€Her€new€testimony€was€that€the€homicide€victim€was€going€to€the€door€to€let€the€defendantÐ D!” Ðinto€the€house,€that€the€defendant€never€threatened€her€or€her€daughter€after€he€entered€the€house,€andÐ 0"€  Ðthat€she€left€the€house€with€him€voluntarily€and€freely.€€She€said€that€the€homicide€victimððs€familyÐ #l! Ðexerted€pressure€on€her€to€testify€as€she€did€during€the€trial.€€She€denied€that€the€defendantððs€familyÐ $X" Ðexerted€pressure€on€her€to€recant€her€testimony.€€Ð ô$D # Ðà ` àThe€trial€court,€in€a€thoughtful,€detailed€order€denying€the€writ,€found€that€JeanneÐ Ì&"% ÐBethððs€testimony€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€was€not€credible.€€The€trial€court€relied€upon€theÐ ¸'#& Ðwitnessððs€statement€made€to€the€police€hours€after€the€incident€and€another€statement€made€on€theÐ ¤(ô#' ÐTuesday€following€the€Friday€night€incident.€€Both€of€these€statements€were€found€to€be€consistentÐ )à$( Ðwith€the€witnessððs€trial€testimony€and€contradictory€to€her€new€testimony.€€The€trial€court€surmisedÐ |*Ì%) Ðthat€the€witness€was€asking€the€court€to€ignore€the€fact€that€ð ðher€husband€had€just€killed€a€man€in€herÐ h+¸&* Ðpresence,€that€she€was€divorcing€him,€and€that€he€was€armed.ðð€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€theÐ ° Ðtrial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€finding€that€the€witness€was€not€credible€in€her€testimonyÐ œì Ðat€the€evidentiary€hearing€or€in€denying€the€defendantððs€writ€of€error€coram€nobis.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó óÐ `° Ðò òÓ  Óó óà ` àIn€summary,€in€this€case€it€was€reversible€error€on€the€felony€murder€charge€to€notÐ 8 ˆ Ðinstruct€the€jury€as€to€the€lesser„included€offenses€of€second€degree€murder,€reckless€homicide,€andÐ $ t Ðcriminally€negligent€homicide.€€We€reverse€the€defendantððs€felony€murder€conviction€and€remandÐ  ` Ðfor€a€new€trial€on€the€felony€murder€count.€€In€all€other€respects,€we€affirm€the€defendantððs€recklessÐ ü L  Ðhomicide,€aggravated€burglary,€and€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€convictions,€for€which€theÐ è 8  Ðdefendant€is€serving€an€effective,€combined€sentence€of€20€years.€€Upon€retrial€of€the€felony€murderÐ Ô$  Ðcount,€any€resulting€conviction€of€felony€murder€or€of€a€lesser„included€offense€will€merge€with€theÐ À  Ðdefendantððs€reckless€homicide€conviction.Ð ¬ü  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_____________________________________Ð „Ô  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ \¬ ÐÓ9°,X°` ŒX'Ø'‹X°,X°` ˜X9Ó