ÿWPC^ ”[Êja¿ÞG§zùc…‰ËÁ¥²\Ë2nYIÕܯ]†ŽÇ<“¹ÑžÜ>œ£Àƒê¿~*§oX¼gñ¯â€£¸z¸óÃO@‹©ß0ÊŽä,6ÿýØþ|T‘À8neS+’¦ÉŒéšèwwkìåëêî‚uyI»ŠòÜ8Á»¶[¸E$_øîUšäœvÉô¢ËnðNfýAJ% Ø=…¹íHT¿¢‚T©~ß Ñß·ÔÛ:¦, D©§n[ÄìJ*NÕVf=šÍc $?è`P^ÿÍ—”È­í<¤òoKƒƒ)[Q0Çë¤ÞšyÚ<®‚7¼ãdwVÕÝ_µBMMtrx;f¯õ•ÒKb@l¦Ç'>·…"Ò}2§»„œ¡›!Ï];å°å‘Æ…†,Ñ­¥ÍU¯A†èa½ôøæÕD§wuh—ÌV¼JvJãCë¡6=•°ÂÍsÕsuÌPî!äº?ОtEv#ס1Ü»WB®ìrl¤¯bUŸu! ÞÛ×ì*©’†Ûº‘w*Lƒ)–I;Do/îcáм=ì‚—/ŽšX°Ë™^Ëý%_<Ÿw”ƒÓY9ñœÒ!¶^Ì_SÀ0Ý/-Æ:fþIûDzB?Q % 0í• UB‚ 4Ä Ø n­ç U :” fÎ 4 "< w@^ U:ž U :Ø ] 01o 0D U:äU:XU:\U:–U:Ð- 7U:;UBuè·U:Ÿ BÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ D3ööö 0D))))))))))) 0Lmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm AO¹Æ 0DÎ D/ BA˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiuM%3|x!«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ ‹!DŒ!V!DŽ!!|e!‘!’!“!”!Ó€,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular SÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XZcXXXÔÔ‡ôuêôXXZcÔÝ ƒÌOÿÝÑ @ ÑÑ7À»þXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€trial€court€determined€the€statement€was€admissible€as€an€excited€utterance€hearsayÐ  Ðexception.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(2).€€The€defendant€does€not€challenge€this€determination.Ô#†XZcXôôuê;#Ô(á(3l-$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€KËXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular úÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XZcXXXÔÔ‡ôuêôXXZcÔÝ ƒÌOÿÝÑ @ ÑÑ7À»þXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€We€note€that€the€deference€given€to€the€trial€court€under€the€abuse€of€discretionÐ  Ðstandard€is€conditioned€upon€the€trial€courtððs€substantial€compliance€with€the€procedural€requirements€ofÏRule€404(b).€€òòIdóó.€€The€defendant€concedes€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€proper€procedure€for€admittingÐ ˜ Ðevidence€under€Rule€404(b).€Ô#†XZcXôôuê;#Ô, øð AZ"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular #Ñ#€ i Xÿÿd#Ñ úÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X*XXXÔÔ‡ôE¼ôXX*ÔÝ ƒÌOÿÝÑ @ ÑÑ7À»þXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€We€note€that€the€deference€given€to€the€trial€court€under€the€abuse€of€discretionÐ  Ðstandard€is€conditioned€upon€the€trial€courtððs€substantial€compliance€with€the€procedural€requirements€ofÏRule€404(b).€€òòIdóó.€€The€defendant€concedes€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€proper€procedure€for€admittingÐ ˜ Ðevidence€under€Rule€404(b).€Ô#†X*XôôE¼;#Ô, øð AZ"Arial Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi ÞÔ€XìÏXXXÔÔ€öqXXìÏÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XìÏXöqÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€29,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý>c$"Small Circleð"ðà0 à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€KËXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ñ›ñ!ñѰÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ XìÏXXXÔÑ€<Ññ”!ñœßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` 8ttxPXð  rß›ñ”!ñ€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@ƒƒ%DàAT€NASHVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€MAY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellee,€à h àà À à)à  àNo.€01C01„9510„CC„00324Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àDavidson€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€Walter€C.€Kurtz,€Judge€€€€€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌALLAN€BROOKS,à  à€€€€€à h à€€à À à)à  à(First€degree€murder)Ð h` Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À à)Ð 4, Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð æÞ ÐÌJohn€E.€Herbisonà  àà h àà À àà  àCharles€W.€BursonÐ ²ª Ð2016€Eighth€Avenue€Southà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ ˜ ÐNashville,€TN€37204à h àà À àà  àà p àandÐ ~v Ðà ¸ àà  à€€à h àà À àà  àCharlotte€H.€RappuhnÐ d\ Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€¼à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà Ð àà (# àÐ 0 ( Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àVictor€S.€Johnson,€IIIÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àñ!ñœñ!ñRoger€Mooreñ!ñ›œñ!ñÌñ!ñ›œñ!ñà ¸ àñ!ñ›œñ!ñà  àñ!ñ›œñ!ñà h àñ!ñ›œñ!ñà À àñ!ñ›œñ!ñà  àñ!ñ›œñ!ñRene€Erbñ!ñ›ñ!ñÌñ!ñœñ!ñà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorneys€Generalñ!ñ›ñ!ñÌñ!ñœñ!ñà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à222€Second€Avenue€NorthÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37201„1642ñ!ñ›ñ!ñÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌñ!ñœñ!ñÌAFFIRMEDñ!ñ›ñ!ñÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌñ”!ñÑ<ÑÑ7€ ìÏ XXdæXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ<ÑÑ#€ i Xÿÿd#ÑÑ  Ññ”!ñÌÐ >:639 ÐÑ<ÑÑ7€ ìÏ XXdæXXdÈ7ÑÑ  Ññ”!ñÑ<ÑÑ7€ œÜ XXdæXXdÈ7ÑÑ  Ññ”!ñÌà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€ñ!ñœñ!ñNó óÔ‡XìÏXX XìÏÔóóˆÐ îæ Ðñ!ñ›ñ!ñÌÌÓÓà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Allan€Brooks,€appeals€as€of€right€following€a€juryÏconviction€in€ñ!ñœñ!ññŽ!ñthe€ñŽ!ñDavidsonñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€County€ñ!ñœñ!ñCriminal€Court€forñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€first€degree€murder.€€The€trial€courtÏsentenced€the€defendant€to€life€imprisonment€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€ofÏCorrection€and€ordered€the€defendant€to€serve€the€life€sentence€consecutively€to€anÏearlier€sentence€for€a€drug€offense.€€The€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€ourÏreview:Ìñ!ñœñ!ñÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àÔ#† XìÏXXXìÏË#ÔÔ€XìÏXX XìÏÔ(1)ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€whether€the€collateral€estoppel€component€of€theÐ nf ÐDouble€Jeopardy€Clause€was€violated€when€the€trialÏcourt€allowed€the€state€to€seek€a€conviction€for€willful,Ïdeliberate,€and€premeditated€murder;Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðà8 ¸ àñ!ñœñ!ñÔ‡ XìÏXXXìÏÔÐ ¸ x¸ x Ðà8 ¸ à(2)ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€prove€allÏelements€of€premeditated€and€deliberate€murderÏbeyond€a€reasonable€ñ!ñœñ!ñdoubt;Ô#†XìÏXX XìÏ–#Ôñ!ñ›ñ!ñи°¸ x¸ x Ðà8 ¸ àÐ ¸ x¸ x Ðà8 ¸ à(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€intoÏevidence€the€victimððs€statement€that€the€defendant€heldÏa€gun€to€her€head€during€an€earlier€incident;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(4)€whether€a€ñ!ñœñ!ñwitnessððñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€testimony€that€the€defendantÏthreatened€to€kill€her€constitutes€prejudicial€error;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(5)€whether€the€testimony€of€Lilly€Rose€exceeded€theÏproper€scope€of€rebuttal;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(6)€whether€the€state€committed€prejudicial€errors€duringÏfinal€argument;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(7)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€theÏdefendantððs€request€for€special€instructions;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(8)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€giving€the€jury€aÏsequential€instruction;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(9)€Ô‡ XìÏXXXìÏÔwhether€the€cumulative€effect€of€ñ!ñœñ!ñthe€errorsñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€renderedÐ –.Ž', Ðthe€trial€fundamentally€unfair;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÔ#†XìÏXX XìÏ'#ÔÌà8 ¸ à(10)€Ô‡ XìÏXXXìÏÔwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€theÐ H1@*/ Ðdefendantððs€sentence€to€be€served€consecutively€to€anÏearlier€sentence;€ñ!ñœñ!ñandÔ#†XìÏXX XìÏ#Ôñ!ñ›ñ!ñÐ3 ,1¸ x¸ x Ðñ!ñœñ!ñÌà8 ¸ àÔ‡ XìÏXXXìÏÔ(11)ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€whether€the€automatic€imposition€of€a€life€sentenceÐ à4Ø-3 Ðupon€conviction€for€first€degree€murder€when€the€stateÏis€not€seeking€the€death€penalty€violates€the€equalÏprotection€component€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÔ#†XìÏXX XìÏ/#ÔÐ x8p17 Ðñ!ñœñ!ñÓÓÓ  ÓWeñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€affirm€the€judgment€of€conviction.Ìà ¸ àÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€was€first€charged€on€January€26,€1990,€with€first€ñ!ñœñ!ñdegreeÏpremeditated€and€deliberateñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€murder,€murder€committed€during€the€attempt€to€perpetrateÏa€felony,€and€burglary€with€the€intent€to€commit€murder€of€his€estranged€girlfriend,€AmyÏPeyton.€€The€defendant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€first€ñ!ñœñ!ñdegree€premeditated€andÏdeliberateñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€murder€and€was€acquitted€of€the€felony€murder€and€burglary€charges.€€TheÏmurder€conviction€was€reversed,€and€the€case€was€remanded€for€a€new€trial€based€onÏthe€trial€courtððs€error€in€jury€instructions€regarding€deliberation€and€premeditation.€€òòSeeóóÐ h` ÐòòState€v.€Brooksóó,Ô‡XœÜXXXœÜÔ€880€S.W.2d€390,€393€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€At€the€second€trial,Ð 4, Ðwhich€forms€the€basis€for€this€appeal,€the€defendant€was€found€guilty€of€first€degreeÏmurder€and€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.ÌÌà ¸ àCody€Albin,€who€lived€in€the€apartment€directly€above€the€victim,€testifiedÏthat€on€August€20,€1989,€she€heard€a€door€slam€at€ñ!ñœñ!ñabout€5:02ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€a.m.,€and€then€she€heardÏa€man€and€a€woman€begin€to€argue€in€the€apartment€below€her.€€Albin€said€sheÏremembered€the€time€because€she€always€arose€at€5:00€a.m.€to€get€ready€for€work,€andÏher€alarm€had€sounded€when€she€heard€the€door€slam.€€She€said€she€began€to€getÏready€for€work,€but€she€stopped€to€dial€9„1„1€when€she€heard€bloodcurdling€screamsÏcoming€from€the€woman€downstairs.€€Albin€testified€that€the€screaming€sounded€likeÏsomeone€was€being€killed.€€She€stated€the€woman€was€screaming,€ð ðNo.€ñ!ñœñ!ñ€Please.ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€ñ!ñœñ!ñ€Donððt.ñ!ñ›ñ!ñÏStop.ðð€€Albin€said€she€also€heard€sounds€like€an€object€was€being€thrown€from€wall€toÏwall.€€She€testified€that€the€noise€stopped€after€five€to€six€minutes,€and€then€there€wasÏsilence€for€approximately€two€minutes.€€She€said€at€the€end€of€the€silence,€she€heard€aÏgunshot.€€She€stated€she€knew€the€sound€was€a€gunshot€because€she€had€dated€aÏpoliceman€and€was€familiar€with€the€sound€that€a€gun€makes€when€it€is€discharged.Ìâ âÐ À5¸.4 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññ!ñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññ!ñà ¸ àColleen€Critton€testified€that€she€lived€in€an€apartment€a€few€floors€aboveÏâ âthe€victim.€€She€testified€that€she€heard€screaming€at€approximately€5:00€a.m.€but€thatÏshe€thought€initially€the€noise€was€caused€by€cats.€€She€said€eventually€she€looked€outÏher€window€and€saw€a€little€boy,€whom€she€later€learned€was€the€victimððs€six„year„oldÏson,€Josh€Peyton,€running€up€the€sidewalk€and€screaming.€€She€said€Josh€appearedÏterrified,€frantic€and€scared.€€She€said€when€she€ran€downstairs€to€talk€to€him,€Josh€toldÏher€his€mother€was€dead.€€She€said€as€they€walked€back€to€the€victimððs€apartmentÏtogether,€Josh€said€to€her,€ð ðYou€donððt€want€to€go€in€there.€€Thereððs€blood€everywhere.ðð€ÏShe€said€she€took€Josh€back€to€her€apartment€and€called€the€police.€€She€stated€JoshÏdid€not€mention€the€defendantððs€name€and€there€was€no€blood€on€Josh€when€she€foundÏhim.€€ÌÌà ¸ àJosh€Peyton,€who€was€ñ!ñœñ!ñsix€years€oldñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€at€the€time€of€the€shooting,€testifiedÏthat€he€witnessed€the€argument€between€the€defendant€and€his€mother€and€theÏñ!ñœñ!ñshooting.ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€€He€said€his€infant€brother,€who€is€the€defendantððs€and€ñ!ñœñ!ñthe€victimððsñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€son,€wasÏalso€in€the€apartment€at€the€time.€€He€stated€he€was€asleep€when€his€mother€cameÏhome,€but€the€sounds€of€the€defendant€and€his€mother€fighting€ñ!ñœñ!ñawokeñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€ñ!ñœñ!ñhim.ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€€He€said€hisÏmother€was€screaming,€and€she€told€Josh€to€get€out€of€the€house.€€He€said€he€tried€toÏuse€the€front€door€but€it€was€stuck.€€He€said€the€defendant€was€hitting€his€mother,€andÏhis€mother€was€trying€to€hit€the€defendant.€€He€stated€his€mother€had€no€weapon€andÏwas€lying€on€the€couch€while€the€defendant€was€hitting€her,€with€her€head€back€and€herÏfeet€out€in€front€of€her€on€the€floor.€€ÌÌà ¸ àJosh€said€he€tried€to€use€the€sliding€glass€door€to€get€out€but€could€notÏopen€it.€€He€testified€that€as€he€was€trying€to€leave,€he€saw€the€defendant€shoot€hisÏmother.€€He€said€he€did€not€hear€anything€as€the€gun€discharged,€but€he€saw€a€lightÏcome€from€the€gun.€€He€said€his€mother€was€on€the€couch€when€she€was€shot,€and€theÏdefendant€was€beside€her€with€a€silver€gun€in€his€hand.€€He€said€he€was€uncertainÐ Œ7„06 Ðwhether€the€defendant€was€in€the€living€room€the€entire€time€Josh€was€trying€to€openÏthe€door,€but€Josh€remembered€the€defendant€was€only€in€the€room€for€a€minute€afterÏhis€mother€was€shot.€€He€said€the€defendant€did€not€go€to€another€part€of€the€apartmentÏbefore€the€defendant€left.€€Josh€testified€that€he€tried€to€follow€the€defendant€as€theÏdefendant€left,€but€the€defendant€told€him€to€go€back€ñ!ñœñ!ñinside€the€apartment.ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€ÌÌà ¸ àJosh€admitted€that€when€he€was€interviewed€by€a€police€officer€theÏmorning€of€the€shooting,€he€told€the€officer€the€defendant€ð ðshockedðð€his€mother€andÏstated€he€did€not€mean€ð ðshotðð€as€in€gunshot€when€the€officer€questioned€him€regardingÏthe€meaning€of€his€statement.€€He€testified€that€this€statement€referred€to€the€fact€thatÏhe€saw€a€light€when€his€mother€was€shot.€€Josh€said€he€now€realizes€his€mother€wasÏshot,€and€the€light€he€saw€came€from€the€gun.Ô#†XœÜXXXœÜ:#ÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔÐ ÌÄ ÐÌà ¸ àOfficer€Raymond€Rader€testified€that€he€received€a€domestic€call€to€theÏvictimððs€apartment€at€5:08€a.m.€on€August€20,€1989.€€Officer€Rader€said€shortlyÏthereafter€he€received€a€second€call€telling€him€the€same€incident€was€now€anÏemergency.€€He€testified€that€he€arrived€four€to€five€minutes€later€and€saw€the€victimððsÏbody€on€the€couch€when€he€entered€the€apartment.€€He€said€the€body€was€not€movingÏand€there€were€no€vital€signs.€€He€said€he€did€not€move€the€body€but€noted€that€theÏvictimððs€face€and€clothing€were€covered€in€blood.€€Officer€Rader€said€he€secured€theÏscene€to€prevent€contamination.ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Ronald€Wilson€testified€that€he€measured€the€victimððs€apartmentÏand€took€pictures.€€He€said€he€noted€a€footprint€on€the€front€door,€and€the€door€latchÏwas€broken.€€He€said€ñ!ñœñ!ñbloodstainsñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€were€found€on€the€door€latch,€handle,€andÏsurrounding€areas.Ìâ âÐ À5¸.4 Ðà ¸ àOfficer€Richard€Winfrey€testified€that€he€assisted€in€processing€theÏâ âevidence€at€the€victimððs€apartment.€€He€said€he€found€a€spiral€notebook€and€a€pen€onÏthe€bed€in€the€bedroom,€and€the€pen€and€notebook€both€had€what€appeared€to€be€bloodÏon€them.€€The€notebook,€which€was€introduced€into€evidence,€contained€a€note€whichÏstated,€ð ðI€Allan,€am€going€to€kill€Amy€and€myself.€€Iððm€sorry€but€she€has€messed€with€myÏlife€for€the€last€ñ!ñœñ!ñtime[.]ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€ñ!ñœñ!ñ€Les,ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€Linda,€Mom,€Edward€and€especially€Preston€I€love€you.€ÏAllan.ðð€€Officer€Winfrey€said€he€also€found€a€bullet€and€a€copper€jacket€embedded€in€theÏcushion€of€the€couch,€and€a€shell€was€found€under€the€victim.ÌÌà ¸ àSergeant€Darrell€Ryan€testified€that€he€took€pictures€and€processed€theÏbody.€€He€stated€the€body€of€the€victim€was€on€the€living€room€sofa€when€he€arrived.€ÏHe€said€the€pillow€was€behind€the€head,€blood€was€on€the€body,€legs,€stomach€andÏsaturated€into€ñ!ñœñ!ñthe€victimððs€clothing,ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€and€blood€was€on€the€victimððs€left€arm€where€itÏflowed€from€the€victimððs€head€because€of€the€gunshot€wound€to€her€face.€€He€said€heÏrolled€the€body€over€and€found€the€copper€jacket€ñ!ñœñ!ñthatñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€was€located€between€the€bodyÏand€the€couch.€€He€stated€he€saw€a€bullet€exit€wound€in€the€back€of€the€victimððs€ñ!ñœñ!ñneckÏandñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€then€searched€the€couch€and€discovered€the€bullet€behind€the€sofa€cushion.ÌÌà ¸ àSergeant€John€Hunter,€an€expert€in€blood€spatter€analysis,€testified€that€heÏarrived€at€the€victimððs€apartment€while€the€body€was€still€there.€€He€said€it€was€unusualÏthat€there€was€no€high€velocity€spatter€from€the€bulletððs€exit€wound,€but€it€may€haveÏbeen€because€the€spatter€was€caught€by€the€victimððs€hair.€€He€said€blood€pooled€underÏthe€sofa€cushions€and€ran€to€the€floor.€€He€also€said€there€was€blood€on€the€furniture,Ïceiling,€and€walls.€€He€testified€that€the€blood€on€the€ñ!ñœñ!ñvenetianñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€blinds€and€the€chair€in€theÏliving€room€was€expectorant,€which€is€blood€that€is€coughed€up€or€spit€out€of€the€mouth.€ÏHe€said€he€found€impact€spatters€on€the€ñ!ñœñ!ñvenetianñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€blinds€above€the€chair,€and€thisÏspatter€type€is€created€when€a€bloody€object€impacts€something€else.€€He€said€theseÏspatters€indicate€the€blood€originally€came€from€the€area€in€front€of€the€chair,€and€theÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññ!ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññ!ñspatters€were€consistent€with€someone€being€hit€while€seated€at€or€standing€in€front€ofÐ  Ðthe€chair.€€He€also€stated€there€were€transfer€and€low€velocity€spatter€stains,€and€theÏblood€spattering€was€consistent€with€someone€being€beaten€in€the€living€room€byÏnumerous€strikes.€€He€said€a€single€blow€would€not€cause€ñ!ñœñ!ñspattering.Ìñ!ñ›ñ!ñÌà ¸ àSergeant€Hunter€testified€that€he€also€found€transfer€stains€in€the€hallwayÏñ!ñœñ!ñthatñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€led€to€the€two€bedrooms€and€that€the€stains€were€transferred€from€a€bloody€objectÏthat€was€in€motion.€€He€said€the€stains€in€the€hallway€were€about€torso€height€and€wereÏconsistent€with€a€bloody€body€brushing€against€the€wall€while€walking€down€the€hallway.€ÏHe€said€he€found€additional€ñ!ñœñ!ñbloodstainsñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€in€the€bedroom€on€the€door€casings,€floor,€bed,Ïchest€of€drawers€and€the€clothes€ñ!ñœñ!ñwithin€the€drawers.ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€€He€said€these€stains€were€free„¼flowing€or€transfer€stains.€€He€said€the€dresser€drawer€was€broken€at€the€joint,€which€isÏnot€necessarily€evidence€of€a€struggle€but€is€also€consistent€with€pulling€the€drawer€outÏforcefully.ÌÌà ¸ àSergeant€Larry€Lewis,€of€the€Daytona€Beach,€Florida€Police€Department,Ïtestified€that€the€defendant€was€arrested€on€August€25,€ñ!ñœñ!ñ1989,ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€at€a€mall€in€DaytonaÏBeach,€and€the€police€ñ!ñœñ!ñdiscovered€at€the€shopping€mallñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€a€Toyota€stolen€by€theÏñ!ñœñ!ñdefendant.ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€ñ!ñœ›ñ!ñ€ñ!ñœñ!ñHeñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€said€the€police€found€numerous€documents€in€the€defendantððs€name€inÏthe€car.€€He€said€the€police€also€found€a€.357€firearm€in€the€car,€and€the€weapon€hadÏfour€live€rounds.€€He€said€two€rounds€had€been€fired.€€He€said€the€police€found€a€smallÏamount€of€cocaine,€a€pornographic€tape,€and€some€menððs€clothing€and€toiletry€items€inÏthe€car.ÌÌà ¸ àTommy€Heflin,€a€forensic€sciences€agent€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation,€testified€that€he€examined€the€defendantððs€gun.€€He€said€the€gunÏfunctioned€properly,€and€the€safety€mechanism€was€working.€€He€said€the€gun€wasÏtested€to€see€if€it€would€go€off€accidentally€when€hit€or€dropped,€and€the€test€wasÐ Œ7„06 Ðnegative.€€He€said€when€the€gun€is€fired,€it€ejects€a€bright€flash€of€light€in€addition€toÏpowder€and€primer€residues,€and€when€fired€at€bare€skin,€the€gun€leaves€reddishÏmarkings€or€small€burns€called€powder€tattooing.€€He€testified€that€these€markings€showÏthe€gun€was€fired€within€twenty„four€inches€of€the€target.€€He€said€heat€is€created€whenÏa€gun€is€fired,€and€the€heat€would€burn€oneððs€hand€if€it€were€placed€on€the€barrel€at€theÏtime€of€firing.€€He€said€his€tests€revealed€the€copper€jacket€found€in€the€victimððsÏapartment€was€fired€from€the€gun€admitted€into€evidence.€€On€cross„examination,€heÏsaid€it€is€possible€for€one€to€hold€the€barrel€of€the€gun€while€it€is€fired€and€not€getÏburned.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Mona€Harlan,€the€former€medical€examiner€for€Davidson€County,Ïtestified€that€she€performed€the€autopsy€on€the€victimððs€body.€€She€testified€that€theÏcause€of€death€was€a€gunshot€wound€that€entered€at€the€top€of€the€cheek,€just€outsideÏthe€left€eye,€and€exited€the€back€of€the€neck€below€the€hairline.€€She€said€the€barrel€ofÏthe€gun€was€about€three€to€twelve€inches€from€the€victim€when€she€was€shot.€€€Dr.ÏHarlan€said€the€victim€suffered€bruising€to€the€lips,€gums,€and€face,€tearing€of€the€skin,Ïbruising€to€the€left€side€of€the€chin€and€cheek,€extensive€bruising€on€the€right€side€of€herÏface,€black€eyes,€a€star„shaped€tear€on€the€right€side€of€her€scalp,€and€a€broken€nose.€ÏShe€said€the€victim€was€probably€alive€when€she€received€these€injuries€ñ!ñœñ!ñbecauseñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€deadÏpeople€usually€do€not€bruise.€€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Harlan€testified€that€the€victim€also€received€injuries€to€her€ear€thatÏwere€caused€by€either€a€significant€force€or€an€object€with€an€edge€being€swung€at€theÏvictim.€€She€said€the€object€could€have€been€a€gun€similar€to€the€defendantððs€gun.€€SheÏtestified€that€the€sharp€tear€wound€also€could€have€been€caused€by€impact€with€the€gun.€ÏShe€said€the€left€side€of€the€victimððs€brain€was€bruised,€probably€by€a€blow€to€theÏopposite€side€of€the€head€or€a€strike€directly€over€the€affected€area.€€Dr.€Harlan€said€theÏvictim€had€extensive€bruising€to€the€lips€and€split€gums€ñ!ñœñ!ñthatñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€were€caused€by€at€leastÐ Œ7„06 Ðthree€separate€impacts€to€the€mouth€area.€€She€said€that€from€the€injuries€sustained,Ïthe€victim€could€have€been€comatose,€awake€and€confused,€or€awake€and€alert€yetÏweakened€before€she€was€shot.€€She€said€the€only€fatal€wound€was€the€gunshot€wound.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Harlan€testified€that€she€did€a€blood€and€urine€analysis€ñ!ñœñ!ñthatñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€showedÏthe€victim€had€something€alcoholic€to€drink€the€night€of€the€shooting,€but€there€was€notÏenough€alcohol€in€her€blood€stream€to€have€affected€her€behavior.€€She€said€the€victimÏhad€injuries€to€her€arms€and€hands,€and€the€victimððs€arm€was€probably€up€against€herÏface€when€she€was€shot.€€She€testified€that€there€were€no€burns€on€the€victimððs€handsÏto€indicate€that€she€had€her€hand€on€the€weapon€when€it€was€fired.€€She€said€a€gunshotÏresidue€test€was€not€possible€because€of€the€amount€of€blood€the€victim€had€on€herÏhands€when€her€body€arrived€for€examination.€€Dr.€Harlan€said€when€the€victim€wasÏshot,€she€had€to€have€been€in€a€position€similar€to€that€in€which€her€body€was€foundÏwhen€the€police€arrived.ÌÌà ¸ àDonna€Beavers,€a€friend€of€the€victim,€testified€that€she€met€the€victim€inÏSeptember€1988€at€the€bank€where€they€worked€together€and€that€they€saw€each€otherÏsocially€several€times€each€week.€€She€said€the€victim€had€dated€the€defendant€beforeÏshe€and€the€victim€were€friends,€and€the€victim€started€dating€the€defendant€again€in€theÏbeginning€of€1989.€€She€said€she€and€the€victim€and€two€men€decided€to€go€out€onÏAugust€19,€1989.€€She€said€they€went€to€a€softball€party€then€to€Patrickððs,€a€local€bar.€ÏShe€said€the€victim€had€made€plans€to€meet€the€defendant€at€Patrickððs.€€She€testifiedÏthat€when€they€arrived€at€the€bar,€the€defendant€was€there€and€he€and€the€victim€gotÏinto€an€argument.€€She€said€the€defendant€threw€a€drink€on€the€victim€then€reached€forÏthe€victimððs€drink€and€punched€a€man€who€tried€to€intervene.€€She€said€both€men€wereÏtaken€out€of€the€bar.€€She€said€when€Patrickððs€closed,€the€victim€drove€them€homeÏbecause€she€had€not€had€much€to€drink,€and€at€4:00€a.m.€they€dropped€the€victim€off€atÏher€apartment.€Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àBeavers€testified€that€the€victim€told€her€the€defendant€pointed€a€gun€atÏher€forehead€in€the€parking€lot€of€Patrickððs€in€July€1988.€€She€said€the€victim,€whoÏappeared€very€excited,€told€her€about€the€incident€when€Beavers€arrived€at€the€victimððsÏcar€just€after€the€incident€occurred.€€She€said€neither€she€nor€the€victim€reported€theÏincident€to€the€police.€€She€admitted€that€in€the€past,€other€incidents€had€caused€theÏvictim€to€seek€restraining€orders€on€the€defendant,€and€she€did€not€know€why€the€victimÏdid€not€report€that€particular€incident€to€the€police.€€Beavers€testified€that€theÏrelationship€between€the€victim€and€the€defendant€was€stormy€but€that€on€August€18,Ï1989,€the€victim€told€her€she€and€the€defendant€had€decided€they€were€going€to€beÏfriends€and€date€other€people.€€She€said€this€decision€seemed€to€relieve€the€victim.€€SheÏsaid€she€had€never€seen€a€gun€in€the€victimððs€apartment.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€graduated€with€honors€from€ñ!ñœñ!ñtheñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€UniversityÏof€Tennessee€and€that€he€had€attended€one€year€of€law€school€ñ!ñœñ!ñin€1980„81.ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€€He€said€hisÏsources€of€income€before€the€shooting€included€selling€real€estate,€cocaine,€andÏmarijuana,€and€his€primary€source€of€income€during€the€time€he€dated€the€victim€wasÏselling€cocaine.€€He€said€he€heavily€used€cocaine,€using€a€minimum€of€one€gram€perÏday€and€sometimes€as€much€as€one€eighth€to€one€quarter€of€an€ounce.€€He€explainedÏthat€the€combination€of€alcohol€and€cocaine€caused€him€to€lose€his€sense€of€judgment,Ïand€he€testified€about€several€incidents€when€he€was€high€on€cocaine€and€his€impairedÏjudgment€caused€him€to€do€irrational€things,€such€as€confronting€a€mugger€who€had€aÏknife.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€and€the€victim€had€a€son€together,€but€theyÏhad€a€sporadic€relationship.€€He€said€he€and€the€victim€lived€together€at€one€point,€butÏhe€asked€her€to€leave€his€house€after€an€argument.€€He€said€they€began€dating€again€inÏApril€1989,€but€the€victim€would€start€arguments€with€him€when€he€received€calls€fromÏother€women.€€He€admitted€he€consorted€with€prostitutes,€and€this€caused€problems€inÐ Œ7„06 Ðtheir€relationship.€€The€defendant€stated€their€relationship€was€going€well€in€April€1989,Ïbut€they€broke€up€in€July€because€they€began€having€problems.€€He€said€he€neverÏpointed€a€gun€at€the€victim.€€He€said€on€August€18,€1989,€he€and€the€victim€reconciledÏand€came€to€an€agreement€to€act€civilly€toward€each€other€and€to€date€other€people.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€said€his€friend,€Les€Rawding,€gave€him€a€gun€to€use€forÏprotection€from€the€jealous€boyfriend€of€one€of€the€defendantððs€female€friends.€€He€saidÏthe€gun€was€usually€unloaded.€€He€said€he€did€not€like€ñ!ñœñ!ñto€have€theñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€gun€in€his€home,€andÏit€was€never€in€his€car.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€testified€that€on€the€night€of€August€19,€1989,€he€met€LesÏÔ_ÔRawdingÔ_Ô€at€the€Boardwalk€Caf,€and€he€started€drinking,€doing€cocaine€and€smokingÏmarijuana.€€He€said€he€left€to€meet€the€victim€at€Patrickððs€about€midnight€and€when€theÏvictim€arrived,€she€was€angry€because€she€had€intercepted€a€message€from€anotherÏfemale€on€his€answering€machine.€€The€defendant€said€he€and€the€victim€fought,€then€aÏman€ñ!ñœñ!ñsteppedñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€between€them,€and€the€defendant€hit€the€man.€€He€said€the€bouncer€threwÏhim€and€the€other€man€out€of€Patrickððs,€but€he€got€into€another€fight€in€the€parking€lotÏwith€a€different€man.€€He€ñ!ñœñ!ñsaid€thatñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€when€he€left€Patrickððs€at€about€12:30€ñ!ñœñ!ña.m.,ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€he€wasÏintoxicated,€and€he€went€to€other€bars€to€continue€drinking.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€testified€that€when€he€arrived€home€between€3:00€and€4:00Ïa.m.,€his€briefcase,€a€gun,€some€cash,€and€cocaine€were€missing€from€his€house.€€HeÏsaid€he€suspected€the€victim€and€called€her,€but€she€denied€breaking€into€his€house€andÏhung€up€on€him.€€He€said€he€left€his€house€to€go€to€the€victimððs€apartment€to€retrieve€theÏmissing€items€at€about€5:00€a.m.,€and€he€was€angry,€frustrated,€and€irritable.€€He€saidÏhe€had€a€key€to€the€victimððs€apartment,€but€he€did€not€bring€the€key€with€him.€Ìâ âÐ À5¸.4 Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€was€in€an€alcoholic€stupor€when€he€arrivedÏâ âat€the€victimððs€apartment.€€He€said€he€kicked€in€the€door€because€he€knew€his€missingÏgun€was€in€the€victimððs€apartment,€and€he€knew€from€experience€she€would€threatenÏhim€with€the€gun.€€He€said€the€victim€was€standing€in€the€living€room€when€he€enteredÏthe€apartment.€€He€said€he€saw€his€briefcase€on€the€counter€and€asked€her€for€hisÏthings.€€He€said€the€victim€reached€down€into€her€pocketbook€and€pulled€out€a€silverÏobject€which€he€suspected€was€the€gun.€€He€said€he€rushed€toward€her,€they€bothÏbegan€to€struggle€for€the€weapon,€and€she€began€to€yell,€ð ðHelp€me.ðð€€He€stated€theirÏvoices€were€ñ!ñœñ!ñloud,ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€and€he€began€to€beat€her.€€He€said€she€was€trying€to€hit€ñ!ñœñ!ñhim,ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€and€heÏwas€scared.€€He€said€he€ñ!ñœñ!ñhit€the€victimððs€head€with€his€headñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€a€number€of€times,€but€heÏdid€not€know€how€many€times,€and€they€were€both€bleeding.€€He€said€the€gun€firstÏdischarged€early€in€the€struggle,€and€the€bullet€grazed€his€right€hand.€€He€said€he€finallyÏmanaged€to€get€the€gun€from€the€victim,€and€he€placed€it€on€the€counter.€€TheÏdefendant€testified€that€the€victim€then€apologized€to€him,€hugged€him€and€said,€ð ðI€loveÏñ!ñœñ!ñyou.€ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€We€can€work€this€out.ðð€€He€said€once€he€relaxed€his€grasp€on€her,€the€victim€ran€toÏget€the€ñ!ñœñ!ñgun,ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€and€another€struggle€for€the€gun€ensued.€€He€said€they€were€struggling€inÏfront€of€the€couch€when€she€fell€downward€toward€the€couch,€and€the€gun€discharged€aÏsecond€ñ!ñœñ!ñtime,ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€hitting€her€under€the€left€eye.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€did€not€know€whether€Josh€Peyton€was€inÏthe€room€when€the€gun€was€fired,€but€he€vaguely€remembered€stumbling€down€theÏhallway€afterward€to€look€for€a€ñ!ñœñ!ñpenñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€to€write€a€note.€€He€said€he€saw€Josh€while€he€wasÏin€the€hallway.€€He€said€he€did€not€remember€writing€a€note€or€picking€up€his€briefcaseÏand€gun,€ñ!ñœñ!ñbutñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€he€did€recall€trying€to€leave€through€the€front€door.€€He€said€because€theÏfront€door€was€jammed,€he€went€to€the€sliding€glass€door,€removed€the€rod€from€theÏtrack,€and€left.€€He€said€Josh€asked€to€go€with€him,€but€he€sent€Josh€back€inside€theÏapartment.€€ÌÐ Œ7„06 Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€was€in€an€alcohol€and€ñ!ñœñ!ñpanic„inducedñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€stateÏof€shock.€€He€said€he€got€into€his€car€and€drove,€eventually€ending€up€in€Florida.€€HeÏsaid€he€neither€knew€nor€cared€where€he€was€going,€and€he€had€only€forty€or€sixtyÏdollars€when€he€left€his€home€to€go€to€the€victimððs€apartment€and€ñ!ñœñ!ñhad€noñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€credit€cards,Ïchange€of€clothing,€or€toiletry€items€with€him.€€He€said€while€he€was€in€Florida,€he€sent€aÏletter€to€Les€Rawding€asking€Rawding€to€tell€the€police€they€could€find€the€defendantððsÏbody€somewhere€in€the€Atlantic€Ocean.€€He€said€that€although€he€contemplated€suicide,Ïhe€could€not€do€it.€€He€said€he€was€arrested€several€days€later€after€he€stole€a€car€and€aÏwomanððs€purse€and€tried€to€use€the€stolen€credit€card€to€purchase€luggage€and€menððsÏclothing.€ÌÌà ¸ àLes€Rawding,€the€defendantððs€friend€for€thirteen€years,€testified€that€heÏmet€the€defendant€at€a€bar€on€the€evening€of€August€19,€1989,€at€about€9:00€p.m.€€HeÏsaid€he€drank€with€him€for€about€an€hour,€and€the€defendant€did€not€appear€to€beÏintoxicated.€€He€said€he€did€not€see€the€defendant€ingest€cocaine€that€night,€and€heÏnever€saw€the€defendant€become€irrational€or€violent€when€he€used€the€drug.Ô#†XœÜXXXœÜê0#ÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔ€€He€saidÐ ü!ô Ðhe€did€not€talk€to€the€defendant€again€until€the€next€morning€when€the€defendant€calledÏhim€and€told€him€he€had€killed€the€victim.€€He€said€the€defendant€told€him€he€left€a€noteÏsaying€he€did€it,€and€the€defendant€said€he€was€leaving.€€Rawding€said€he€did€not€knowÏwhether€the€defendant€owned€a€gun,€and€he€denied€giving€the€defendant€the€gun€usedÏto€shoot€the€victim.€ÌÌà ¸ àSherry€Neal,€an€ex„girlfriend€of€the€defendant,€testified€that€she€was€in€theÏdefendantððs€home€in€the€summer€of€1988,€and€she€knew€the€defendant€owned€twoÏguns.€€She€said€she€saw€the€guns€on€top€of€his€bed€one€day.€€She€said€the€defendantÏtold€her€he€carried€a€gun€with€him€at€all€times.Ìâ âÐ À5¸.4 Ðà ¸ àLilly€Rose,€the€owner€of€First€Class€Escort€Service€in€Nashville,€testifiedÏâ âthat€she€knew€the€defendant€for€two€years,€and€she€was€familiar€with€his€telephoneÏnumber€and€his€voice€because€he€had€called€her€hundreds€of€times.€€She€said€she€sawÏthe€defendant€at€Patrickððs€on€August€19,€1989,€and€he€appeared€to€be€a€littleÏñ!ñœñ!ñintoxicatedÔ_ÔÔ_Ô.ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€€She€said€she€saw€the€defendant€being€escorted€from€the€bar€but€did€notÏtalk€to€him€again€until€she€received€a€call€from€him€at€about€3:00€a.m.€€She€said€heÏwanted€her€to€send€someone€from€her€escort€agency€to€his€house,€but€she€told€himÏthey€were€closed.€€She€said€the€defendant€had€no€difficulty€speaking,€and€he€madeÏsense€and€sounded€normal.ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.€€DOUBLE€JEOPARDYÐ ø Ðó óÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€òòAshe€v.€Swensonóó,€397€U.S.€ñ!ñœñ!ñ436,ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€443„44,€90Ð ØÐ Ðñ!ñœñ!ñS.€Ct.ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€1189,€1194€(1970),€precludes€a€second€trial€for€first€degree€murder€unless€thisÏcourt€concludes€that€evidence€in€the€first€trial€is€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€that€theÏdefendant€formed€premeditation€and€deliberation€after€he€entered€the€victimððsÏapartment.€€We€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€such€a€finding.ÌÌÔ#†XœÜXXXœÜ {#ÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔà ¸ àIn€òòAsheóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€explained€the€process€a€courtÐ  %˜" Ðmust€go€through€to€determine€whether€collateral€estoppel€is€applicable€in€the€context€ofÏdouble€jeopardy:Ìñ!ñœñ!ñÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àWhereñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€a€previous€judgment€of€acquittal€was€basedÏupon€a€general€verdict,€as€is€usually€the€case,€thisÏapproach€requires€a€court€to€ð ðexamine€the€record€of€aÏprior€proceeding,€taking€into€account€the€pleadings,Ïevidence,€charge,€and€other€relevant€matter,€andÏconclude€whether€a€rational€jury€could€have€groundedÏits€verdict€upon€an€issue€other€than€that€which€theÏdefendant€seeks€to€foreclose€from€consideration.ððÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÔ#†XœÜXXXœÜ\ƒ#ÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔòòÓÓÓ  Óñ!ñœñ!ñIdóó.ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€ñ!ñœñ!ñ(citationsñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€omitted).€€òòSeeóó€ñ!ñœñ!ñòòalsoóóñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€òòState€v.€Allenóó,€752€S.W.2d€515,€516€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð 3,1 Ð1988);€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€713€S.W.2d€670,€674€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).Ð æ4Þ-3 Ðâ âÐ ²6ª/5 Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€argues€that€because€he€was€acquitted€of€burglary€with€theÏâ âintent€to€commit€murder€yet€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€at€the€first€trial,€the€juryÏnecessarily€must€have€found€that€the€defendant€did€not€intend€to€kill€the€victim€when€heÏbroke€into€her€apartment.€€Instead,€he€ñ!ñœñ!ñarguesñ!ñ›œñ!ñ€thatñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€the€jury€must€have€found€that€heÏformed€the€intent€to€kill€after€he€entered€the€apartment.€€He€contends€that€the€jury€mustÏhave€found€that€the€intent€was€formed€during€the€struggle€between€him€and€the€victimÏand€that€there€was€not€enough€time€thereafter€for€the€defendant€to€form€the€deliberationÏand€premeditation€necessary€for€first€degree€murder.€€He€argues€that€because€thereÏwas€insufficient€evidence€presented€at€the€first€trial€of€premeditation€and€deliberation,Ïthe€state€should€have€been€precluded€from€trying€him€for€first€degree€murder.€€ñ!ñœñ!ñTheñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€trialÏcourt€did€not€prohibit€the€state€from€proceeding€on€a€first€degree€murder€charge€but€didÏprohibit€the€state€from€proceeding€on€a€theory€that€the€defendant€formed€his€intent€toÏmurder€the€victim€before€or€while€he€was€breaking€into€her€apartment.Ô#†XœÜXXXœÜo†#ÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔÐ ˜ ÐÌà ¸ àWe€conclude€that€there€is€ample€evidence€in€the€first€trial€from€which€theÏjury€could€have€found€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€The€victimððs€neighbor,€who€livedÏupstairs,€testified€that€she€heard€sounds€of€a€struggle,€then€the€sounds€stopped€for€twoÏminutes€before€she€heard€a€gunshot.€€Also,€the€state€presented€a€note,€written€by€theÏdefendant,€in€which€he€said€he€was€going€to€kill€the€victim.€€The€jury€could€easily€haveÏfound€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€during€this€two€minute€interval,€the€defendantÏformed€the€premeditation€and€deliberation€necessary€to€support€a€first€degree€murderÏconviction.€€Finally,€the€testimony€of€the€medical€examiner,€explaining€the€many€injuriesÏthe€victim€sustained€before€she€was€shot,€belies€the€defendantððs€claim€that€the€shootingÏoccurred€during€a€mutual€struggle.€€The€medical€examiner€testified€that€after€the€victimÏreceived€the€beating,€she€could€have€been€unconscious,€or€conscious€yet€very€weak.€ÏEither€way,€she€would€be€in€no€position€to€engage€in€violent€combat€with€the€defendant,Ïas€he€claimed.€€ñ!ñœñ!ñThisñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€evidence€ñ!ñœñ!ñis€sufficient€for€the€jury€to€have€found€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€in€the€first€trial€thatñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€the€defendant€formed€the€necessaryÐ Œ7„06 Ðpremeditation€and€deliberation€after€he€entered€the€victimððs€ñ!ñœñ!ñapartment.€€Thus,ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€theÏcollateral€estoppel€doctrine€of€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause€did€not€preclude€the€stateÏfrom€ñ!ñœñ!ñretryingñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€the€defendant€for€first€degree€murder.Ìñ!ñœñ!ñÔ#†XœÜXXXœÜ³Œ#ÔÔ€XœÜXXXœÜÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔò òñ!ñ›œñ!ñÌà@wwDàœñ’!ñIñ’!ñI.ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ›€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ D< Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction€for€first€degree€murder.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€evidenceÏonly€supports€a€second€degree€murder€or€voluntary€manslaughter€conviction€becauseÏthe€evidence€shows€the€defendant€and€the€victim€were€involved€in€mutual€combat€whenÏthe€shooting€œñ!ñœñ!ñoccurredñ!ñ›œñ!ññ!ñ,ñ!ñ›€andñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€œthusñ‘!ñ,ñ‘!ñ›€there€is€no€evidence€of€the€elements€of€premeditationÏand€deliberation.€€The€state€argues€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€ofÏintent,€premeditation,€and€deliberation.ÌÌà ¸ àOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€questionedÏon€appeal€is€ð ðwhether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÐ "  Ðcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.Ð à#Ø  Ð2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€may€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€but€mustÏpresume€that€the€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€allÏreasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ð D)<"& Ð676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ð +$( Ð1978).ÌÌà ¸ àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€isÏsufficient€to€support€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€first€degree€murder.€€According€toÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„13„201(b),€a€deliberate€act€is€one€that€is€ð ðperformed€with€a€cool€purpose,ððÏwhereas€a€premeditated€act€is€one€that€is€ð ðdone€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€andÏjudgment.ðð€€We€believe€there€is€ample€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€juryððsÐ ¤7œ06 Ðfinding€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€The€state€introduced€evidence€from€theÏvictimððs€neighbor,€who€lived€upstairs,€that€the€sounds€of€the€struggle€between€theÏdefendant€and€the€victim€stopped,€and€two€minutes€later€the€neighbor€heard€theÏgunshot.€€The€defendant€argues€that€even€if€this€witnessðð€testimony€is€believed,€twoÏminutes€is€not€enough€time€to€deliberate€and€premeditate.€€However,€neither€this€courtÏnor€our€supreme€court€has€delineated€a€specific€time€period€during€which€deliberationÏmust€occur,€other€than€that€it€cannot€occur€in€an€instant.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836Ð ÐÈ  ÐS.W.2d€530,€543€(Tenn.€1992).€€Ô#†XœÜXXXœÜ<“#ÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔWith€respect€to€premeditation,€our€ñ!ñœñ!ñsupremeñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€ñ!ñœñ!ñcourtñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€hasÐ œ”  Ðdetermined€that€it€can€be€formed€in€an€instant.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,Ð h` Ð148€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€addition,€this€court€has€concluded€that€both€premeditation€andÏdeliberation€can€be€formed€in€as€few€as€one€or€two€minutes.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€David€L.Ð ø ÐHassellóó,€No.€ñ!ñœñ!ñ02„C„01„9202„CR„00038,ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€Shelby€ñ!ñœñ!ñCounty,€slip€op.€at€4„9ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ÌÄ ÐDec.€30,€1992).€€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€addition€to€the€ñ!ñœñ!ñtwo„minute€timeñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€frame€during€which€the€stateððs€witnessÏtestified€that€the€struggle€ended€and€the€shot€was€fired,€other€evidence€introduced€atÏtrial€supports€a€finding€that€the€defendant€had€time€to€premeditate€and€deliberate.€€MostÏdamaging€to€the€defendant€with€respect€to€premeditation€and€deliberation€is€the€factÏthat€he€wrote€a€note€stating€that€he€was€going€to€kill€the€victim.€€Although€the€defendantÏtestified€that€he€wrote€the€note€after€the€shooting,€merely€confusing€his€tenses,€the€juryÏrejected€his€testimony€in€favor€of€the€stateððs€theory.€€The€jury€could€have€concluded€thatÏthe€defendant€wrote€the€note€during€the€ñ!ñœñ!ñtwo„minuteñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€interval,€thereby€having€enoughÏtime€to€premeditate€and€deliberate.€€Furthermore,€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Harlan,€showingÏthe€victim€was€in€no€condition€to€engage€in€a€violent€struggle€with€the€defendant€beforeÏshe€was€shot,€belies€the€defendantððs€claim€the€shooting€occurred€during€a€mutualÏstruggle.€€We€conclude€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€intent,€premeditation,€andÏdeliberation€is€sufficient€to€support€his€conviction€for€first€degree€murder.€€€Ô#†XœÜXXXœÜÖ#ÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔÐ À5¸.4 ÐÐ Œ7„06 ÐÓ  Óò òIII.€ó ó€ò òPRIOR€BAD€ACTó óÔ#†XœÜXXXœÜ¥#ÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔÐ  Ðò òÓ  Óà ¸ àó óThe€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€into€evidenceÐ àØ Ðtestimony€from€the€victimððs€friend,€Donna€Beavers,€that€about€a€month€before€theÏshooting,€the€victim€told€Beavers€the€defendant€held€a€gun€to€the€victimððs€head.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€HeÐ x p Ðargues€the€testimony€should€have€been€excluded€ñ!ñœñ!ñunder€Rule€404(b),ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€Tenn.€R.€ñ!ñœñ!ñEvid.,ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€ñ!ñœñ!ñitñ!ñ›ñ!ñÏviolated€his€right€to€a€fair€trial,€and€it€violated€his€confrontation€clause€rights.€Ô#†XœÜXXXœÜŸ¥#ÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔÐ   ÐÓ  Óò òÌA.€ÌÓ  Óó óà ¸ àFirst,€the€defendant€argues€the€testimony€is€inadmissible€under€RuleÐ Œ„ Ð404(b),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€Ô#†XœÜXXXœÜo¨#ÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔ€Our€standard€of€review€on€appeal€with€respect€to€the€admissionÐ XP Ðof€evidence€under€Rule€404(b)€is€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€òòSeeóóÐ $ ÐòòState€v.€DuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€œ6ñ“!ñ5ñ“!ññ“!ñ8ñ“!ñ2›€(Tenn.€1997).ñ!ñœñ!ññ!ñ׃ ×ñ!ññ!ñ׃ ×ñ!ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ñ!ñ›ñ!ñÔ#†XœÜXXXœÜe©#ÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔ€Ô#†XœÜXXXœÜH«#ÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔ€The€defendant€correctly€arguesÐ ðè Ðthat€in€a€criminal€trial,€evidence€of€another€crime€committed€by€a€defendant€usually€isÏnot€admissible€because€it€is€irrelevant€and€prejudicial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876Ð ˆ€ ÐS.W.2d€824,€828€(Tenn.€1994).€€Ô#†XœÜXXXœÜ‹«#ÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔHowever,€such€evidence€may€be€admissible€underÐ T L ÐRule€404(b)€if€it€is€relevant€to€a€litigated€issue,€such€as€identity,€intent,€or€rebuttal€ofÏaccident€or€mistake,€and€its€probative€value€is€not€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice.€€Ô#†XœÜXXXœÜì¬#ÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔÐ ¸%°" ÐÌà ¸ àWe€conclude€that€under€the€facts€of€this€case,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuseÏits€discretion€in€admitting€Beaversðð€testimony€that€the€defendant€held€a€gun€to€theÏvictimððs€head.€€Our€supreme€court€has€recognized€that€evidence€of€a€defendantððs€priorÏacts€of€violence€against€a€victim€is€admissible€under€Rule€404(b)€because€the€acts€areÏrelevant€to€show€the€defendantððs€hostility€toward€the€victim,€malice,€intent,€and€a€settledÐ €0x). Ðpurpose€to€harm€the€victim.€€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679,€708€(Tenn.€1997),€òòcert.óóÐ  Ðòòdeniedóó,€118€S.€Ct.€238€(1998)Ô#†XœÜXXXœÜ1®#ÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔ;€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€574€(Tenn.€1993).€€OurÐ ÔÌ Ðsupreme€court€concluded€that€the€probative€value€of€such€evidence€is€not€outweighedÏby€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€òòHallóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€708.€€In€the€present€case,Ð l d Ðthe€trial€court€admitted€the€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€prior€act€against€the€victim€inÏorder€to€show€the€full€relationship€between€the€parties,€to€show€the€defendantððs€hostilityÏtoward€the€victim,€and€to€show€the€defendantððs€malice,€intent,€and€settled€purpose€toÏharm€the€victim.€€The€trial€court€also€determined€that€the€probative€value€of€theÏevidence€is€not€outweighed€ñ!ñœñ!ñby€the€danger€ofñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€unfair€prejudice.€€We€conclude€that€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€admitting€such€evidence.€€Although€the€defendantÏcomplains€that€the€evidence€adds€nothing€probative€to€the€stateððs€case,€the€trial€courtÏcorrectly€determined€that€the€evidence€is€probative€of€the€defendantððs€malice€toward€theÏvictim€and€his€intent€to€do€harm€to€her.€€Furthermore,€its€probative€value€is€notÏoutweighed€ñ!ñœñ!ñby€the€danger€ofñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€unfair€prejudice,€particularly€in€light€of€the€fact€that€theÏdefendant€admitted€to€a€volatile€relationship€with€the€victim.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€there€was€not€clear€and€convincingÏevidence€that€the€defendant€held€a€gun€to€the€victimððs€head.€€In€order€for€evidence€of€aÏprior€crime€or€wrong€to€be€admissible€under€Rule€404(b),€the€trial€court€Ô#†XœÜXXXœÜö°#ÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔmust€find€clearÐ `'X $ Ðand€convincing€evidence€of€the€other€crime.€€òòSeeóó€ñ!ñœñ!ñTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b),€AdvisoryÐ ,)$"& ÐCommission€Comment;€òòHallóó,ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€958€S.W.2d€at€ñ!ñœñ!ñ708;€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299,€303Ð ø*ð#( Ð(Tenn.€1985).ñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€€Ô#†XœÜXXXœÜ0·#ÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€heard€testimony€from€Beavers€that€theÐ Ä,¼%* Ðvictim€told€her€the€defendant€held€a€gun€to€her€head.€€Beavers€testified€that€the€victimÏrelated€the€incident€to€her€immediately€after€it€occurred,€and€the€victim€seemed€excited.€ÏThe€defendant€presented€no€evidence€that€either€the€victim€had€a€motive€to€lie€whenÏshe€made€the€statement€to€Beavers€or€that€Beavers€had€a€motive€to€lie€when€she€madeÏthe€statement€in€court.€€We€conclude€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ô#†XœÜXXXœÜ®¸#ÔÔ‡XœÜXXXœÜÔò òÐ À5¸.4 ÐÐ Œ7„06 ÐÓ  Óà @¸ àB.ÌÓ  Óà ¸ àó óNext,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€admission€of€Beaversðð€testimonyÐ àØ Ðdenied€him€due€process€and€his€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€the€testÏfor€whether€the€admission€of€evidence€violated€the€defendantððs€federal€constitutionalÏrights€to€a€fair€trial€is€similar€to€the€balancing€test€required€for€the€admission€of€evidenceÏunder€Rule€403,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€€Because€we€have€already€determined€that€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€finding€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€is€notÏoutweighed€by€unfair€prejudice,€we€conclude€that€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òC.Ð @8 ÐÓ  Óó óà ¸ àFinally,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€admission€of€Beaversðð€testimonyÐ  Ðviolated€the€defendantððs€right€to€confront€and€cross„examine€the€victim.€€We€disagree.€ÏThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€in€order€to€satisfy€the€confrontationÏclause,€the€state€must€show€the€declarant€is€unavailable,€and€the€evidence€must€bearÏits€own€ð ðindicia€of€reliability.ðð€€òòOhio€v.€Robertsóó,€448€U.S.€56,€66,€100€S.€Ct.€2531,€2539Ð H @ Ð(1980).€€Evidence€that€falls€within€a€firmly€rooted€hearsay€exception€is€consideredÏinherently€reliable.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð à#Ø  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€admitted€Beaversðð€testimony€as€an€excited€utteranceÏhearsay€exception.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€803(2),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€€Both€the€United€States€SupremeÐ D)<"& ÐCourt€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€have€determined€that€the€excited€utteranceÏexception€is€firmly€rooted.€€òòSeeóó€òòWhite€v.€Illinoisóó,€502€U.S.€346,€355€ñ!ñœñ!ñn.8,ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€112€S.€Ct.€736,Ð Ü,Ô%* Ð742€ñ!ñœñ!ñn.8ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€(1992);€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€771€S.W.2d€387,€393„94€(Tenn.€1989).€€However,€theÐ ¨. ', Ðdefendant€argues€that€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€also€requires€a€finding€that€theÏevidence€is€not€crucial€or€devastating.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hendersonóó,€554€S.W.2d€117,€119Ð @28+0 Ð(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Armesóó,€607€S.W.2d€234,€239€(Tenn.€1980).€€This€court€hasÐ  4-2 Ðpreviously€determined€that€the€ð ðcrucial€or€devastatingðð€requirement€is€inapplicable€whenÏthe€right€to€confrontation€has€been€satisfied.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Arnoldóó,€719€S.W.2d€543,€548Ð ¤7œ06 Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€Even€if€the€requirement€were€applicable,€it€would€be€satisfiedÏin€this€case€in€light€of€the€fact€that€the€defendant€had€already€admitted€to€a€tumultuousÏand€violent€relationship€with€the€victim,€and€there€was€other€evidence€presented€fromÏwhich€the€jury€could€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€first€degree€murder.€ò òÐ l d ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.€€PRIOR€THREATÌÓÊÓà ¸ àó óThe€defendant€argues€that€the€testimony€of€the€defendantððs€formerÐ èà  Ðgirlfriend,€Sherry€Neal,€regarding€the€ñ!ñœñ!ñdefendantñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€threatening€her,€constitutes€prejudicialÏerror.€€During€the€rebuttal€phase€of€the€trial,€Neal€testified€that€the€defendant€told€her€heÏcarried€a€gun€at€all€times.€€When€the€prosecutor€asked€Neal€when€the€defendant€madeÏthis€statement,€Neal€responded,€ð ðOn€one€occasion€when€he€called€and€threatened€to€killÏme.ðð€€Both€the€prosecutor€and€the€defense€attorney€immediately€approached€the€bench,Ïand€the€prosecutor€told€the€trial€court€Neal€had€been€instructed€not€to€say€anythingÏabout€her€past€problems€with€the€defendant.€€The€trial€court€responded€by€telling€theÏjury€to€disregard€Nealððs€statement,€instructing€that€the€statement€ð ðhas€nothing€to€do€withÏthis€lawsuit€and€donððt€consider€it€for€any€reason€whatsoever,€donððt€consider€that€inÏreaching€a€decision€in€this€case.ððò òà À àÐ à#Ø  ÐÌà ¸ àó óThe€defendant€acknowledges€the€well„established€principle€that€a€promptÐ „'| $ Ðcurative€instruction€from€the€trial€court€generally€cures€any€error.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tyleróó,Ð P)H"& Ð598€S.W.2d€798,€802€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€However,€he€argues€that€in€this€case,Ïthe€trial€courtððs€instruction€was€ineffectual€because€the€testimony€was€so€prejudicial,€it€isÏmore€probable€than€not€that€the€testimony€affected€the€judgment.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€36(b).€Ð ´.¬', ÐWe€disagree.€€Although€Nealððs€testimony€was€inadmissible,€the€trial€court€gave€a€promptÏcurative€instruction€to€the€jury,€and€the€jury€is€presumed€to€follow€the€trial€courtððsÏinstruction.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brothersóó,€828€S.W.2d€414,€416€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€WeÐ 4-2 Ðdo€not€believe€Nealððs€testimony€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment€in€light€ofÏthe€fact€that€other€substantial€evidence€was€presented€against€the€defendant.€€Ð °7¨06 Ðò òÓ  Óñ!ñœñ!ñÓ;ÒÓÔ#†XÜ“XXXܓܾ#ÔÔ‡XÜ“XXXÜ“Ôñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñÓ  ÓV.€€REBUTTAL€TESTIMONYÐ  Ðó óÓ¹ÒÓà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€testimony€of€Lilly€Rose,€owner€of€FirstÐ àØ ÐClass€Escort€Services,€exceeded€the€proper€scope€of€rebuttal€and€inflamed€the€jury.€ÏSpecifically,€the€defendant€takes€issue€with€Roseððs€testimony€that€the€defendant€calledÏher€hundreds€of€times€to€secure€the€services€of€an€escort.€€The€defendant€argues€thatÏbecause€he€freely€admitted€to€using€Roseððs€services,€her€testimony€served€no€purposeÏon€rebuttal.€€The€state€argues€the€testimony€is€proper€because€it€contradicted€severalÏstatements€made€by€the€defendant€on€direct€examination.€€ÌÌà ¸ àAny€competent€evidence€that€explains,€directly€replies€to,€or€contradictsÏmaterial€evidence€introduced€by€the€defense€or€brought€out€on€cross„examination€isÏadmissible€as€rebuttal€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€831,€835€(Tenn.Ð ØÐ ÐCrim.€App.€1987).€€The€scope€of€rebuttal€lies€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€òòIdóó.€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€on€the€admissibility€of€rebuttal€evidence€will€not€beÐ ph Ðoverturned€absent€a€clear€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Scottóó,€735€S.W.2d€825,Ð < 4 Ð828€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà ¸ àViewed€in€this€light,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÏdiscretion€by€allowing€Roseððs€testimony.€€Her€testimony€rebuts€the€defendantððs€claimÏthat€he€was€heavily€intoxicated€the€morning€of€the€shooting€because€she€testified€thatÏshe€talked€to€him€that€ñ!ñœñ!ñmorning,ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€and€he€sounded€fine.€€The€fact€that€she€had€talked€toÏhim€hundreds€of€times€before€is€relevant€to€her€being€able€to€explain€that€she€wasÏfamiliar€with€his€voice€and€knew€he€sounded€normal€when€he€called€her€before€theÏshooting.€€In€addition,€her€testimony€directly€contradicts€the€defendantððs€testimony€inÏthat€Rose€said€the€defendant€called€her€at€about€3:00€a.m.€before€the€shooting,Ïwhereas€the€defendant€said€he€did€not€leave€a€bar€to€return€home€until€after€3:00€a.m.€ÏEven€if€the€evidence€did€exceed€the€scope€of€rebuttal,€its€admission€is€harmless€in€lightÏof€the€fact€that€the€defendant€had€already€testified€that€he€consorted€with€prostitutes.Ð ˜706 Ðò òÓ  ÓVI.€FINAL€ARGUMENTÐ  Ðó óÓÇÛÓà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€state€made€false€statements€duringÐ àØ Ðclosing€argument€that€constitute€prejudicial€error.€€First,€the€defendant€argues€that€theÏstate€misstated€the€evidence€when€the€prosecutor€said€the€victimððs€head€and€neckÏcould€not€have€been€more€than€one€inch€away€from€the€couch€when€she€was€shot.Ô#†XÜ“XXXÜ“…Ò#ÔÔ‡XÜ“XXXܓԀРD< ÐSecond,€the€defendant€takes€issue€with€the€stateððs€comment€during€closing€argumentÏthat€deliberation€can€occur€within€a€period€of€only€a€few€seconds.€€The€state€argues€thatÏthe€prosecutor€correctly€stated€the€law€and€did€not€misstate€the€evidence.€€The€stateÏalso€ñ!ñœñ!ñargues€thatñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€any€potential€prejudice€to€the€defendant€was€corrected€when€the€trialÏcourt€gave€a€curative€instruction.ÌÌà ¸ àWith€respect€to€the€defendantððs€contention€that€the€prosecutor€misstatedÏthe€evidence,€we€note€that€the€defendant€failed€to€object€to€this€statement€duringÏclosing€argument.€€The€failure€to€object€contemporaneously€constitutes€a€waiver€of€theÏissue€pursuant€to€Rule€36(a),€T.R.A.P.€€Regardless,€the€prosecutorððs€statement€is€notÏso€misleading€that€it€was€prejudicial€error.€€The€prosecutor€said€Dr.€Harlan€testified€thatÏthe€victimððs€neck€could€not€have€been€more€than€one€inch€from€the€couch€when€sheÏwas€shot,€when€in€fact€Dr.€Harlan€said€the€victimððs€neck€could€not€have€been€more€thanÏa€few€inches€from€the€couch.€€This€discrepancy€did€not€prejudice€the€defendant.€ÌÌà ¸ àWith€respect€to€the€defendantððs€contention€regarding€the€prosecutorððsÏcomment€on€deliberation€during€closing€argument,€we€ñ!ñœñ!ñhesitate€to€hold€thatñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€theÏprosecutor€misstated€the€law.€€After€explaining€that€a€deliberate€act€is€one€that€isÏperformed€with€a€cool€purpose€after€some€period€of€reflection,€the€prosecutor€stated,Ïð ðThe€law€doesnððt€make€any€specific€amount€of€time€for€a€period€of€time€for€reflection,€itÏcould€be€a€few€seconds€when€a€person€decides€to€go.ðð€€The€defendant€objected,€and€aÏjury„out€hearing€was€conducted.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€defendantððs€objection,€butÏit€did€instruct€the€jurors€that€they€were€to€follow€the€trial€courtððs€explanation€of€the€law,Ð ˜706 Ðnot€the€attorneysðð€explanations.€€The€prosecutor€then€continued€with€closing€argument,Ïstating,€ð ðThe€law€doesnððt€give€any€specific€period.€€It€can€be€after€only€a€few€seconds.ððÌÌà ¸ àThe€prosecutorððs€statement€of€the€law€was€not€ñ!ñœñ!ñnecessarily€inaccurate.ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€ÏThe€prosecutor€correctly€stated€that€the€law€does€not€give€any€specific€period€of€timeÏduring€which€deliberation€must€occur.€€Rather,€the€case€law€on€deliberation€instructsÏthat€it€cannot€occur€in€an€instant.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€543.€€A€linguistic€analysisÐ ÐÈ  Ðof€whether€a€few€seconds€is€synonymous€with€an€instant€is€unnecessary€in€this€caseÏbecause€the€trial€court€gave€an€immediate€curative€instruction.€€In€addition,€there€is€noÏñ!ñœñ!ñevidence€thatñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€the€prosecutor€deliberately€tried€to€mislead€the€jury,€and€there€is€ampleÏevidence€that€would€support€the€juryððs€finding€of€premeditation€and€deliberation,Ïspecifically€the€ñ!ñœñ!ñtwo„minute€time€periodñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€before€the€victim€was€shot€and€the€defendantððsÏown€note,€stating€he€was€going€to€kill€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,Ð ˜ Ð344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€Based€on€these€facts,€we€conclude€that€the€prosecutorÏdid€not€give€an€erroneous€statement€of€the€ñ!ñœñ!ñlaw,ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€but€even€if€she€had€given€an€erroneousÏstatement,€the€defendant€was€not€prejudiced.Ô#†XÜ“XXXÜ“ŽÝ#ÔÔ‡XÜ“XXXÜ“Ôò òÐ ü!ô Ðà ¸ àÌÓ  Ó€VII.€€REQUEST€FOR€SPECIAL€INSTRUCTIONSÌÓ:ëÓà ¸ àó óThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€gave€erroneous€jury€instructionsÐ x'p $ Ðand€erred€by€denying€his€request€for€special€jury€instructions.€€The€state€contends€thatÏthe€trial€courtððs€instructions€were€correct.€€Initially,€we€note€that€in€criminal€cases,€theÏtrial€court€has€the€duty€to€charge€the€jury€on€all€of€the€law€that€applies€to€the€facts€of€theÏcase.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€73€(Tenn.€1992).€€Anything€short€of€aÐ ¨. ', Ðcomplete€charge€denies€the€defendant€his€constitutional€right€to€a€trial€by€jury.€€òòSeeóóÐ t0l). ÐòòState€v.€McAfeeóó,€737€S.W.2d€304,€308€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€However,€a€specialÐ @28+0 Ðinstruction€need€not€be€given€when€its€substance€is€already€covered€in€the€generalÏâ âcharge.€€òòSeeóó€ñ!ñœñ!ñòòEdwards€v.€Stateóó,ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€ñ!ñœñ!ñ540ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€S.W.2d€ñ!ñœñ!ñ641,ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€ñ!ñœñ!ñ649ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€ñ!ñœñ!ñ(Tenn.ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€ñ!ñœñ!ñ1976)Ô#†XÜ“XXXÜ“öê#ÔÔ‡XÜ“XXXÜ“Ô.ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€€We€conclude€thatÐ Ø5Ð.4 Ðthe€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€and€did€not€err€by€denying€the€defendantððsÏspecial€requests.Ìâ âñ!ñœñ!ñÓ  Óò òÌA.ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€€PREMEDITATION€AND€DELIBERATIONó óÐ x p ÐÓ  Óà ¸ àAfter€explaining€to€the€jury€that€the€state€must€prove€the€elements€ofÏdeliberation€and€premeditation,€the€trial€court€stated:Ìñ!ñœñ!ñÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àAñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€premeditated€act€is€one€done€after€the€exercise€ofÏreflection€and€judgment.€€Premeditation€means€that€theÏintent€to€kill€must€have€been€formed€prior€to€the€actÏitself.€€It€is€not€necessary€that€the€purpose€to€killÏpreexists€in€the€mind€of€the€accused€for€any€definiteÏperiod€of€time.€€It€is€sufficient€that€premeditationÏprecede€the€act€as€long€as€it€was€the€result€of€reflectionÏand€judgment.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àThe€mental€state€of€the€accused€at€the€time€he€allegedlyÏdecided€to€kill€must€be€carefully€considered€in€order€toÏdetermine€whether€the€accused€was€sufficiently€freeÏfrom€excitement€and€passion€as€to€be€capable€ofÏpremeditation.€If€the€design€to€kill€was€formed€withÏpremeditation€and€deliberation,€it€is€immaterial€that€theÏaccused€may€have€been€in€a€state€of€passion€orÏexcitement€when€the€design€was€carried€into€effect.€ÏFurthermore,€premeditation€can€be€formed€if€theÏdecision€to€kill€is€first€formed€during€the€heat€of€passion,Ïbut€the€accused€commits€the€act€after€the€passion€hasÏsubsided.€€A€deliberate€act€is€one€performed€with€a€coolÏpurpose€and€after€some€period€of€reflection.€€Passion€isÏany€of€the€emotions€of€the€mind€reflecting€anger,€rage,Ïor€sudden€resentment€rendering€the€mind€incapable€ofÏcool€reflection.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÔ#†XÜ“XXXÜ“Èï#ÔÔ€XÜ“XXXÜ“ÔÓÓÓ  Óñ!ñœñ!ñTheñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€trial€court€later€reiterated€that€the€state€must€prove€both€premeditation€andÐ D)<"& Ðdeliberation.€€ÌÌà ¸ àWith€respect€to€premeditation€and€deliberation,€the€defendant€requestedÏthe€following€instruction:€€Ìñ!ñœñ!ñÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àInñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€order€to€convict€the€Defendant€for€premeditatedÏmurder,€you€must€find€that€the€Defendant€formed€theÏintent€to€kill€prior€to€the€killing,€that€is,€premeditation,Ïand€that€the€Defendant€killed€with€coolness€andÏreflection,€that€is,€deliberation.€€The€deliberation€andÏpremeditation€must€be€akin€to€the€deliberation€andÏpremeditation€manifested€where€the€murder€is€byÏpoison€or€lying€in€wait€„„€the€cool€purpose€must€beÐ Š8‚17 Ðformed€and€the€deliberate€intention€conceived€in€theÏmind,€in€the€absence€of€passion,€to€take€the€life€of€theÏperson€slain.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àDeliberation€requires€some€period€of€reflection,€duringÏwhich€the€mind€is€free€from€the€influences€of€excitementÏor€passion.€€Passion€and€anger€mean€the€same€thing€inÏcriminal€law.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÌñ!ñœñ!ñÓ  Óà ¸ àAfterñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€reviewing€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€and€the€defendantððs€requestedÏinstruction,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€and€did€not€err€byÏdenying€the€defendantððs€special€request.€€First,€we€note€that€the€defendant€requestedÏthe€trial€court€ñ!ñœñ!ñto€instructñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€the€jury€that€the€premeditation€and€deliberation€must€be€akin€toÏthat€manifested€when€the€killing€is€by€poison€or€lying€in€wait.€€The€defendant€correctlyÏargues€that€our€ñ!ñœñ!ñsupremeñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€ñ!ñœñ!ñcourtñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€in€òòBrownóó€stated€that€the€deliberation€and€premeditationÐ æÞ Ðmust€be€akin€to€the€deliberation€and€premeditation€manifested€when€the€murder€is€byÏpoison€or€lying€in€ñ!ñœñ!ñwait.€ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€ñ!ñœñ!ñHowever,ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€the€ñ!ñœñ!ñcourtñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€continued€by€stating,€ð ðMurder€by€poison€orÏlying€in€wait,€are€given€as€instances€of€this€sort€of€deliberate€and€premeditated€ñ!ñœñ!ñkilling,òòÐ JB Ðandñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€in€such€cases€no€other€evidence€of€the€deliberation€and€premeditation€is€required;Ïbut€where€the€murder€is€by€other€means,€proof€of€deliberation€and€premeditation€isÏñ!ñœñ!ñrequiredóó.ððñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€539„40€(emphasis€added).€€Thus,€the€òòBrownóó€decisionÐ ®$¦! Ðdoes€not€require€a€finding€that€the€premeditation€and€deliberation€be€the€same€as€thatÏformed€when€murder€is€by€poison€or€lying€in€wait€as€the€defendant€suggests,€rather€ifÏthe€premeditation€and€deliberation€are€of€such€a€type,€no€other€evidence€ofÏpremeditation€or€deliberation€need€be€shown.€€òòSeeóó€ñ!ñœñ!ñòòalsoóóñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€òòState€v.€Hurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€57,Ð Þ+Ö$) Ð71€(Tenn.€1993)€(the€state€must€prove€that€killing€was€by€poisoning€or€lying€in€wait€orÏwith€premeditation€and€deliberation)€(citations€omitted).€€Thus,€the€trial€court€did€not€errÏby€refusing€the€defendantððs€special€request.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€not€adequately€addressÏthe€length€of€time€necessary€for€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment.€€ñ!ñœñ!ñAlthoughÏunder€the€first€degree€murder€statute€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€offense€in€this€case,ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñÐ r8j17 Ðreflection€and€judgment€relate€to€premeditation,€the€defendant€ñ!ñœñ!ñarguesñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€that€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€properly€instruct€the€jury€in€this€regard€with€respect€to€deliberation.€€In€eitherÏevent,€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€was€proper.€ÌÌà ¸ àOur€ñ!ñœñ!ñsupremeñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€ñ!ñœñ!ñcourtñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€has€held€that€premeditation€can€be€formed€in€anÏinstant,€òòseeóó€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€148€(Tenn.€1992),€although€ñ!ñœñ!ñit€has€also€held€that€itñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€isÐ ü  Ðnot€wise€to€ñ!ñœñ!ñinstructñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€a€ñ!ñœñ!ñjury€of€that€factñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€because€of€the€risk€of€confusing€premeditation€withÏdeliberation,€which€cannot€be€formed€in€an€instant.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€543.€Ð œ”  ÐThe€trial€court€did€not€instruct€the€jury€that€premeditation€can€be€formed€in€an€instant.€ÏInstead,€the€trial€court€told€the€jury€that€a€premeditated€act€is€one€that€is€done€after€theÏexercise€of€reflection€and€judgment.€€The€trial€courtððs€instruction€was€correct.€€ÌÌà ¸ àDeliberation€differs€from€premeditation€in€that€it€requires€proof€that€theÏhomicide€was€committed€with€a€cool€purpose€and€without€passion€or€provocation.€Ïòòñ!ñœñ!ñBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€543.ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€a€deliberate€act€isÐ 0 ( Ðone€performed€with€a€cool€purpose€and€after€some€period€of€reflection€when€the€mind€isÏfree€from€passion€or€provocation.€€In€light€of€the€fact€that€neither€this€court€nor€ourÏñ!ñœñ!ñsupremeñ!ñ›ñ!ñ€ñ!ñœñ!ñcourtñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€has€delineated€a€specific€period€of€time€during€which€deliberation€mustÏoccur,€other€than€the€fact€that€it€cannot€be€formed€in€an€instant,€we€conclude€that€theÏtrial€courtððs€instruction€with€respect€to€deliberation€was€correct.€€In€addition,€the€trialÏcourtððs€definition€of€deliberation€is€nearly€identical€to€the€special€instruction€theÏdefendant€requested.ò òÐ Ä,¼%* ÐÌÓ  ÓB.€€VOLUNTARY€MANSLAUGHTERÌÓ  Óà ¸ àó óNext,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€jury€instructions€do€not€adequatelyÐ @28+0 Ðaddress€the€degree€of€provocation€necessary€to€lower€an€intentional€killing€from€first€orÏsecond€degree€murder€to€voluntary€manslaughter.€€We€disagree.€€The€trial€courtÏinstructed€the€jury€that€a€conviction€for€first€degree€murder€requires€a€finding€that€theÐ ¤7œ06 Ðdefendant€was€free€from€passion€and€excitement.€€The€trial€court€also€instructed€the€juryÏthat€voluntary€manslaughter€requires€a€finding€that€ð ð[i]f€the€intention€and€the€act€are€theÏresult€of€impulse€and€passion,€the€idea€of€malice€is€negated.€€Killing€upon€a€suddenÏheat€of€passion€without€malice€distinguishes€voluntary€manslaughter€from€murder€in€theÏsecond€degree.ðð€€The€trial€court€adequately€instructed€the€jury€regarding€the€degree€ofÏprovocation€necessary€for€premeditated€murder€and€voluntary€manslaughter.Ìò òÌà ¸ àó óThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€gave€an€erroneous€instruction€ofÐ ¨   Ðthe€law€when€it€told€jurors€that€they€must€determine€whether€the€defendant€wasÏsufficiently€free€from€excitement€and€passion€to€be€capable€of€premeditation.€€TheÏdefendant€argues€that€this€instruction€is€contrary€to€prior€case€law€indicating€that€theÏheat€of€passion€brought€on€by€adequate€provocation€need€not€be€so€great€as€to€depriveÏthe€defendant€of€all€reason,€thus€rendering€the€defendant€incapable€of€premeditation€orÏdeliberation.€€òòSeeóó€òòSeals€v.€Stateóó,€62€Tenn.€459,€463€ñ!ñœñ!ñ(1874),ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€and€òòHaile€v.€Stateóó,€31Ð ph ÐTenn.€248,€252€(1851).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€The€trial€courtððs€definition€ofÏvoluntary€manslaughter€restates€that€given€in€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€553.€€Furthermore,Ð " Ðthe€trial€court€did€not€instruct€the€jury€that€the€defendant€must€be€completely€free€fromÏexcitement€and€passion,€but€rather€that€the€defendant€must€be€sufficiently€free€fromÏexcitement€or€passion.€€This€instruction€is€consistent€with€the€essence€of€what€theÏdefendant€requested,€it€is€a€more€accurate€statement€of€the€current€law,€and€it€is€lessÏconfusing€than€the€instruction€proposed€by€the€defendant.ÌÌÓ  Óò òC.€€SECOND€DEGREE€MURDERó óÐ œ.”', ÐÓ  Óà ¸ àFinally,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€not€provide€a€sufficientÏinstruction€relative€to€second€degree€murder.€€He€contends€that€the€trial€courtððsÏinstructions€do€not€explain€the€law€applicable€to€a€killing€done€in€anger€or€passion€that€isÏinsufficient€to€reduce€the€killing€to€voluntary€manslaughter.€€We€conclude€that€this€issueÏis€also€without€merit.€€After€explaining€the€elements€of€second€degree€murder,€the€trialÐ ¤7œ06 Ðcourt€instructed€the€jury,€ð ðIf€one€person€upon€a€sudden€impulse€of€passion€withoutÏadequate€provocation€and€disconnected€with€any€previously€formed€design€to€kill,€killsÏanother€willfully€and€maliciously,€such€killing€is€unlawful€and€is€murder€in€the€secondÏdegree.ðð€€The€trial€court€went€on€to€distinguish€second€degree€murder€from€voluntaryÏmanslaughter€ñ!ñœñ!ñstating,ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€ð ðKilling€upon€a€sudden€heat€of€passion€without€maliceÏdistinguishes€voluntary€manslaughter€from€murder€in€the€second€degree.ðð€€Essentially,Ïthe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€instructed€the€jury€that€if€the€intentÏto€kill€is€formed€in€passion€and€executed€without€time€for€the€passion€to€cool,€it€isÏmurder€in€the€second€degree.€€The€trial€court€may€not€have€used€the€exact€wording€theÏdefendant€requested,€but€the€substance€of€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€encompasses€theÏdefendantððs€request.€€We€conclude€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€denying€the€defendantððsÏspecial€requests.Ìò òÌÓ  ÓVIII.€€SEQUENTIAL€INSTRUCTIONÌÓ&Óà ¸ àó óNext,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€instructing€the€juryÐ H @ Ðto€consider€lesser€included€offenses€only€after€unanimously€determining€that€theÏdefendant€was€not€guilty€of€the€greater€offense.€€This€court€has€twice€rejected€thisÏargument.€€In€òòState€v.€Rutherfordóó,€876€S.W.2d€118,€119„20€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),Ð ¬%¤" Ðthis€court€determined€that€a€sequential€jury€charge€did€not€prevent€the€jury€from€fulfillingÏits€duty€to€determine€the€degree€of€homicide.€€This€court€reached€the€same€conclusionÏin€òòState€v.€Rainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€376,€381„82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€We€view€theseÐ +$( Ðcases€to€be€ñ!ñœñ!ñcontrolling.ò òñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñÐ Ü,Ô%* ÐÌÓ  ÓIX.€€UNFAIR€TRIALÌó óÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€defendant€asks€this€court€to€conclude€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€allÐ X2P+0 Ðthe€alleged€errors€resulted€in€the€defendant€being€deprived€of€a€fair€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð $4-2 ÐCadleóó,€634€S.W.2d€623,€626€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€In€considering€our€rulings€as€toÐ ð5è.4 Ðthe€above€issues,€we€conclude€there€are€no€errors€ñ!ñœñ!ñthatñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€ñ!ñœñ!ñcumulativelyñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€would€rise€to€theÐ ¼7´06 Ðlevel€that€would€deprive€the€defendant€of€a€fair€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòRosenthal€v.€Stateóó,€292Ð  ÐS.W.2d€1,€ñ!ñœñ!ñ4„5€(Tenn.€1956).ò òñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñÐ ÔÌ ÐÓ  Óñ!ñœñ!ñà @ àÌX.ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€€SENTENCINGÌÓE"Óà ¸ àó óThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€him€to€serveÐ PH Ðhis€sentence€consecutive€to€a€previous€conviction€for€the€sale€of€cocaine.€€Specifically,Ïhe€argues€that€the€trial€court€gave€no€basis€for€finding€the€defendant€to€be€a€dangerousÏoffender,€òòseeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(4),€nor€did€the€trial€court€find€confinement€isÐ ´¬  Ðnecessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct€by€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòÐ €x ÐState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€939€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€state€argues€that€theÐ LD Ðrecord€supports€a€finding€that€the€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender,€ñ!ñœñ!ñandñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€in€theÏalternative,€that€a€consecutive€sentence€is€proper€considering€the€defendantððs€history€ofÏcriminal€activity.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(2).Ð °¨ ÐÌà ¸ àÔ‡ XÜ“XXXÜ“ÔAppellate€review€of€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€with€aÐ H @ Ðpresumption€that€the€trial€court's€determinations€are€correct.€€T.C.A.€ñ!ñœñ!ñððñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€40„35„401(d).€€AsÏthe€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€to€this€section€notes,€the€burden€is€now€on€theÏdefendant€to€show€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€This€means€that€if€the€trial€courtÏfollowed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€made€findings€of€fact€that€are€adequatelyÏsupported€in€the€record,€and€gave€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factorsÏand€principles€that€are€relevant€to€sentencing€under€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€we€mayÏnot€disturb€the€sentence€even€if€a€different€result€were€preferred.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805Ð Ü,Ô%* ÐS.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà ¸ àHowever,€"the€presumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trialÏcourt's€action€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÏâ âcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€Ð Ø5Ð.4 ÐòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€respect,€for€the€purpose€ofÐ  Ðmeaningful€appellate€review,€Ìâ âÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àthe€trial€court€must€place€on€the€record€its€reasons€forÏarriving€at€the€final€sentencing€decision,€identify€theÏmitigating€and€enhancement€factors€found,€state€theÏspecific€facts€supporting€each€enhancement€factorÏfound,€and€articulate€how€the€mitigating€andÏenhancement€factors€have€been€evaluated€andÏbalanced€in€determining€the€sentence.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„¼210(f)€(1990).€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€599€(Tenn.€1995).Ð ¶®  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ¸ àAlso,€in€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review,€we€must€consider€(1)€the€evidence,Ð h` Ðif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€theÏprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€natureÏand€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct,€(5)€any€mitigating€or€statutory€enhancementÏfactors,€(6)€any€statement€that€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf€and€(7)€theÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103€and€„210;€òòseeóóÐ d\ ÐòòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168;€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229€(Tenn.€1986).Ð 0 ( ЀÔ#†XÜ“XX XÜ“2&#ÔÔ‡XÜ“XXXܓԀ€Ð ü!ô Ðà ¸ àThe€trial€courtððs€only€finding€with€respect€to€consecutive€sentencing€wasÏwhen€the€trial€judge€stated€ð ðthe€facts€.€.€.€are€sufficient€to€convince€me€that€[theÏdefendant]€is€a€dangerous€offender€.€.€ñ!ñœñ!ñ.€.ððñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€€This€court€has€previously€determined€that€aÏtrial€court€must€provide€ð ða€principled€justification€for€every€sentence,€including,€ofÏcourse,€consecutive€sentences.ðð€€òòWilkersonóó,€933€S.W.2d€at€939€(citations€omitted).€Ð ø*ð#( ÐBased€on€the€record€before€us,€the€trial€court€did€not€consider€all€relevant€sentencingÏprinciples.€€Thus,€our€review€of€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€with€noÐ .ˆ', Ðpresumption€of€correctness.€€òòSeeóó€ñ!ñœñ!ñòòAshbyñ‡!ññ†!ñ,ñ†!ññ‡!ññˆ!ñóóñˆ!ññ‰!ñ,ñ‰!ññˆ!ñóóñˆ!ññ!ñ›ñ!ñ€832€S.W.2d€at€169.Ð \0T). ÐÌà ¸ àNevertheless,€we€conclude€that€the€record€supports€a€consecutiveÏsentence.€€There€is€no€question€but€that€the€defendantððs€behavior€indicated€little€or€noÏregard€for€human€life€and€that€he€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€whichÐ Œ7„06 Ðñ!ñœñ!ññŠ!ñthe€ñŠ!ñriskñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€to€human€life€was€high.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(4).€€In€addition,€theÐ  Ðsentence€is€necessary€to€protect€the€public€against€further€criminal€conduct€by€theÏdefendant€and€the€consecutive€sentence€reasonably€relates€to€the€severity€of€theÏoffense€committed.€€òòSeeóó€òòWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€939.Ô#†XÜ“XXXÜ“"0#ÔÔ‡XÜ“XXXܓԀ€The€evidence€shows€that€theÐ l d Ðdefendant€viciously€beat€the€victim€before€shooting€her€in€the€face€while€the€victimððs€twoÏsmall€children€were€in€the€apartment.€€€In€addition€to€brutally€beating€then€murdering€theÏvictim,€the€defendant€admitted€a€long€history€of€buying,€selling€and€using€cocaine.€€HeÏadmitted€driving€while€under€the€influence€of€alcohol€and€drugs.€€He€admitted€at€leastÏtwo€assaults.€€In€light€of€these€facts,€we€determine€that€a€consecutive€sentence€isÏappropriate.€ò òÐ 4, ÐÌÓ  ÓXI.€EQUAL€PROTECTIONó óà @À àÔ#†XÜ“XXXÜ“r6#ÔÐ ØÐ ÐÓ¥8Óà ¸ àFinally,€the€defendant€argues€that€in€first€degree€murder€cases€when€theÏstate€is€not€seeking€the€death€penalty,€the€automatic€imposition€of€a€life€sentence€thatÏfollows€a€conviction€violates€the€equal€protection€component€of€the€Law€of€the€LandÏclause€of€Article€I,€ñ!ñœñ!ñSectionñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Specifically,€the€defendantÏargues€that€because€not€all€first€degree€murders€share€equal€moral€culpability,€theÏsentencing€judge€should€be€given€discretion€as€to€ñ!ñœñ!ñwhetherñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€to€impose€life€imprisonmentÏfollowing€a€conviction€for€first€degree€ñ!ñœñ!ñmurder.€ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€ñ!ñœñ!ñThis€courtñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€has€previously€held€that€underÏa€rational€basis€test,€the€automatic€imposition€of€a€life€sentence€under€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„¼202(b)€does€not€violate€Article€I,€ñ!ñœñ!ñSectionñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð +$( ÐRayóó,€880€S.W.2d€700,€706€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€We€decline€the€defendantððsÐ Ü,Ô%* Ðinvitation€in€the€present€case€to€reverse€this€courtððs€prior€determination.¹Ó  Óò òÌñ!ñœñ!ññ‹!ñÐ  L2D+0 Ðñ‹!ññŒ!ñÐ  L2D+0 ÐñŒ!ñV.ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñ€€CONCLUSIONÌó óÓ  Óà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€theÐ àØ Ðjudgment€of€conviction.€€€ÌÌÔ€XÜ“XXXÜ“ÔÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à________________________________Ð D< Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌÌñ!ñœñ!ñCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌñ!ñ„ñ!ñ____________________________ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñÌGary€R.€Wade,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌñ!ñœñ!ñ____________________________ñ!ñ›ñ!ññ!ññ!ñÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€ñ!ñœñ!ñSpecial€Judgeñ!ñ›ñ!ñ