ÿWPC" ±_6K¼7p'’ŠªQÎ`¾¡ ‚蔤Ûå…0¥9AP¿1ÜD/ÕFx}¿â°ø„Ï¡sƒÇIÀ;¦М?¾Â­•¾6ª¥%-ÌήZå.ì fŤ4ù0±/iF’Ix\GpIšƒg.¥GeúÓ±G\8—i¨kòÒ° ÔØY×NGpÂ¥”=ÝJÒTfÕû¿šÌYƒø÷Ú I‰úÛÏý¹¸Ü¥N˯5Ö–^sÁÝœà½fgøÈ `‹?‡^ˆç c <ü_°å6qDül?ÿwš½ŸIƒoÖ±T‚¼‚̈&›"eu?„dºkkÐ%OkãñÇ:|§vvŒ?:] I«J–óðdqTâ'ã~æ%ÐÀo?Ï–:=rÑMš?¾+Xw€þ¹”›ä?ö˜ðˤª$ÌÞÄÓZ8aõ]I‹C+úëÖ’³Mªõ±izf2@Üo_´¨[Ã!RV{7`ÞöÛ9æ›ÀkÖ7ìœÀLÈý…ŸÃ§ÒÆcD.Ñå€éWšÚëèIïÜÐó&oz qs;5A˜à–œe~Λ—Œ•ÛîlÓÁGVÓ„+PŠ¡”މ眈ø/‹ì0xºbp6ìFÇ—'GG¨-ë5$åå+ëÚ…UBF %ˆ U.Ž ¼ nXÌ 0P$ 4t ˆ 0³ 0cC w@¦ U:æ U: U:Z  ” Ÿ µ¿ÐÕè¥U:"ÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇ Béééééé D3 0D9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 AO}ÆÌÌ 0D’ D/Ö B<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|XŠ«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓuM%(c(2ˆÄ$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€X‹èXXXÔà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ˆ$Ô€ X<=XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó xy{z{|}~€Ó€g"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ p„$ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€X+æXXXÔà œ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔ±ôXX+æÔWhat€the€defendant€urges€is€a€rule€similar€to€that€once€applied€in€the€context€of€the€FifthÐ `  ÐAmendment€right€against€self„incrimination,€i.e.,€that€once€the€investigatory€process€shifts€from€theÏinvestigation€stage€to€the€accusatory€stage,€the€defendantððs€rights€are€triggered.€€òòSeeóó€òòEscobedo€v.Ð Ü | ÐIllinoisóó,€378€U.S.€478€(1964).€€That€rule€has€since€been€completely€abolished.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòStansbury€v.Ð š : ÐCaliforniaóó,€511€U.S.€318€(1994);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòAndersonóó,€937€S.W.2d€at€854;€òòCooperóó,€912€S.W.2d€at€766. Ñ ° Ñ Ý ƒ ˆä$ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€XÏiXXXÔà œ àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôô‹ôXXÏiÔIt€is€inappropriate€to€assess€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€based€only€on€the€properly€admittedÐ `  Ðevidence.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Longstreetóó,€619€S.W.2d€97€(Tenn.€1981);€òòState€v.€Robert€Lee€ð ðFlippoððÐ  ¾ ÐMorrisóó,€C.C.A.€No.€1195,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€November€20,€1991,€at€Knoxville).€Ð Ü | ÐThus,€even€though€we€hold€that€the€statement€given€to€Detective€Bernard€was€improperly€admitted,€weÏmust€consider€it€in€determining€whether€the€evidence€presented€to€the€jury€is€sufficient€to€sustain€a€guiltyÏverdict. Ñ ` Ñ ÆÝ ƒ p„$ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€X+æXXXÔà œ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔ±ôXX+æÔWe€recognize€that€Detective€Bernard€testified€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€he€did€not€tell€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€he€was€free€to€leave,€but€then€testified€at€trial€that€he€did€in€fact€tell€the€defendant€he€was€freeÏto€leave.€€We€also€recognize€that€the€recent€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€case€of€òòState€v.€Johnny€M.Ð ,| ÐHenningóó,€No.€02S01„9707„CC„00065,€Madison€County€(Tenn.€filed€June€22,€1998,€at€Jackson)(pendingÐ ê: Ðpublication),€allows€us€to€consider€evidence€adduced€at€trial€in€determining€whether€to€suppressÏevidence.€€However,€given€the€conflict€in€Detective€Bernardððs€testimony,€and€given€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances,€we€would€still€conclude€that€a€reasonable€person€in€the€defendantððs€place€would€notÏhave€felt€free€to€leave. ÞÔ€X‹èXXXÔÔ€­wXX‹èÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X‹èX­wÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€12,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ñ , ÑÑ  Ñ d$$$$'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýññ›ññÒPDÒÒŽ¦ÒѰÑÑX°ÑÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÔ€X9ÊXXXÔÑ7€ 9Ê XXdðdÈ7Ñññßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@Eê ` 8ttxP"ð  rß›ññà ¨ àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ  ÐÌà@uu:MàAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌÓ  Óà@ll8MàJUNE€1998€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ° àà  àà ` à)ó óÐ xp  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)ó óà ¸ àò òC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9704„CC„00136ó óÐ h`  Ðà ¨ àà àAppellee,à ° àò ò€€€€€à  àà ` à)Ð XP  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àRUTHERFORD€COUNTYó óÐ H@  ÐVS.à ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)Ð 80  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àHON.€JAMES€K.€CLAYTON,€JR.,Ð (  ÐRICKY€RAYMOND€BRYAN,à  àà ` à)à ¸ àJUDGEÐ  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)Ìà ¨ àà àó óAppellant.ò òà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àó ó(First„Degree€Murder)ò òÐ øð Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà ° àà  àà ` à€€€€€òòà ¸ àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÐ ¸° ÐÌÌò òGERALD€L.€MELTONà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ ˆ€ Ðó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ xp Ð201€œWest›€Main€St.,€Suite€101ÌMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130à ° àò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àLISA€A.€NAYLORó óÐ X P Ð(On€Retrial€and€On€Appeal)à  àà ` àà ¸ àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÐ H!@ Ѐ€à ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJohn€Sevier€Bldg.Ð 8"0 Ðò òBRAD€W.€HORNSBYó óà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à425€Fifth€Ave.,€Northà ! àà p# à€€€€€€€€Ð (#  ÐP.O.€Box€398à X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð $ ÐMurfreesboro,€TN€€37133„0398Ì(At€First€Trial)à X àà ° àò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àWILLIAM€WHITESELLó óÐ ø%ð! Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àThird€Floor€Judicial€Bldg.Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130Ìà ¨ àà àà X àÌÌÌÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDED€FOR€A€NEW€TRIALó óÐ ø4ð-1 ÐÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÐ È7À04 ÐJudgeÌÐ  ¨9 26 ÐѰXÑÓ  ÓÑ€ŸOќр‰9Ñññ››››ññÑ€OY Ñ›à@™™:Màò òòòÔ‡¼ç&¼XX9ÊÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†X9ÊX¼¼ç&C#ԈР ÐÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€and€found€guilty€of€first„degree€murder.€ÏFollowing€a€hearing,€the€defendant€was€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.€€In€this€appealÏas€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€review:ÌÒ PÒÒ°ŽÒÓÓI.€€Whether€retrial€of€the€defendant€violated€his€constitutionalÏprotections€against€double€jeopardy;ÌÌII.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€suppress€statements€theÏdefendant€made€to€various€law€enforcement€officers;ÌÌIII.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€suppress€statements€theÏdefendant€made€to€people€who€allegedly€approached€him€under€theÏdirection€of€law€enforcement€officers;€andÌÌIV.€€Whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€verdict€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€is€guilty€of€first„degreeÏmurder,€that€is:ÌÌÒh Òà8 À àA.€€Whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€proveÏthe€defendant€was€the€perpetrator;€andÐ ÀÐ ÀÐ  ÐÌà8 À àB.€€Whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€proveÏpremeditation€and€deliberation.ÓÜÓÐ ÀÐ ÀÐ  ÐÒPh ÒÒŽ°ÒWe€reverse€and€remand€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌà ¨ àà àCharlotte€Scott,€a€seventy„two„year„old€Nashville€resident,€was€reportedÏmissing€on€Tuesday,€October€18,€1994.€€Her€family€had€found€the€door€to€her€homeÏunlocked,€with€no€sign€of€forced€entry.€€Her€coffee€pot€was€prepared€to€make€coffee,€noÏvaluables€were€missing,€and€her€automobile€was€parked€in€front€of€her€home.€€No€bloodÏwas€found€at€the€victimððs€residence.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendant,€the€victimððs€thirty„eight„year„old€boyfriend,€became€aÏsuspect.€€He€first€spoke€with€police€on€Wednesday,€October€19,€and€the€police€detectiveÏwith€whom€he€spoke€noticed€a€scratch€mark€on€his€face.€€The€defendant€stated€that€theÏlast€time€he€saw€the€victim€was€in€September€1994.€€The€police€discovered€that€shortlyÏafter€the€victim€disappeared,€someone€attempted€eight€separate€ATM€transactions€on€theÐ Î9Æ26 Ðvictimððs€account,€and€three€of€these€transactions€were€aborted€for€exceeding€the€amountÏof€money€in€the€account.€€The€defendant€admitted€using€the€victimððs€ATM€card:€ð ðI€usedÏ[the€victimððs]€bank€card€on€Sunday€[October€16]€to€take€money€out€at€Nipperððs€CornerÏFirst€Tennessee€Anytime€Teller,€the€day€she€could€not€be€found.ðð€€The€significance€of€thisÏstatement€was€that€up€until€this€point,€the€authorities€did€not€know€exactly€when€the€victimÏhad€disappeared.ÌÌà ¨ àà àOn€November€6,€1994,€the€defendant€told€his€brother,€Danny€Bryan,€thatÏhe€was€with€the€victim€at€the€rock€quarry€near€Sam€Ridley€Boulevard€on€the€evening€sheÏdisappeared.€€He€said€that€on€the€evening€of€Saturday,€October€15,€1994,€the€victimÏcalled€him€and€asked€him€to€come€to€her€house.€€He€said€he€did€not€go€to€her€houseÏimmediately€because€œhis›€daughter€was€staying€at€his€house.€€In€the€early€morning€hoursÏof€Sunday,€October€16,€1994,€he€drove€to€her€house.€€They€then€drove€to€the€rock€quarry.€ÏAt€around€2:00€a.m.,€he€left€to€get€the€victim€something€to€eat,€but€when€he€returned,Ïseveral€unidentified€men€were€there€and€he€could€not€locate€the€victim.€€He€hid€until€theÏunidentified€men€left,€went€to€the€area€where€the€men€were,€and€discovered€the€victimððsÏlifeless€body,€which€he€buried€in€the€rock€quarry.€€After€the€defendant€admitted€this€toÏDanny,€Danny€reported€the€conversation€to€the€local€police.€€Sometime€after€that,€theÏdefendant€visited€Danny€at€his€house,€and€Danny€observed€the€defendant€vacuuming€hisÏcar.ÌÌà ¨ àà àOn€November€7,€the€police€searched€the€defendantððs€house.€€Ô‡ X+æXXX™±ÔNo€traces€ofÐ h.`'* Ðblood€or€fingerprints€of€the€victim€were€found€in€the€defendantððs€residence€or€car.Ô#†X™±XX X+æÀ#Ô€€ActingÐ L0D), Ðon€the€information€Danny€gave€them,€the€police€also€began€searching€the€rock€quarry€forÏthe€victimððs€body.€€Within€the€next€week,€a€Nashville€television€station€interviewed€theÏdefendant€on€videotape.€€In€the€interview,€the€defendant€said€he€did€not€know€where€theÏvictim€was€and€that€they€were€distributing€ð ðmissing€personðð€fliers€around€town€in€the€hopeÏof€finding€her.Ð °9¨26 Їà ¨ àà àThe€defendantððs€son,€Shannon,€approached€the€authorities€involved€in€theÏinvestigation€and€volunteered€to€help€them€locate€the€victimððs€body.€€He€told€them€heÏbelieved€if€he€talked€to€the€defendant,€the€defendant€would€tell€him€where€the€victimððsÏbody€was€located.€€On€November€11,€wired€with€a€recording€device€and€a€transmitter€andÏmonitored€by€the€police,€Shannon€met€with€the€defendant€at€his€house.€€Shannon€askedÏthe€defendant€if€he€knew€where€the€victimððs€body€was,€and€the€defendant€replied€no.€ÏShannon€suggested€that€they€try€to€find€the€victimððs€body,€but€the€defendant€refused,Ïclaiming€that€would€create€more€problems€for€them.€€The€defendant€stated€he€had€theÏvictimððs€ATM€card€and€had€used€it€three€times€after€she€disappeared.€€He€later€stated€heÏbelieved€the€victim€was€not€dead€but€instead,€had€run€away.ÌÌà ¨ àà àOn€November€14€around€9:00€p.m.,€Shannon€again€met€with€the€defendantÏat€his€house.€€This€conversation€was€also€monitored€by€the€police.€€Again,€the€defendantÏmaintained€he€did€not€know€where€the€victimððs€body€was,€but€he€said€if€he€did€know,€heÏwould€help€Shannon€move€it.€€Later,€the€defendant€told€Shannon€that€he€knew€where€atÏthe€rock€quarry€a€manððs€body€was€buried€and€that€they€should€go€move€that€body€beforeÏthe€police€found€it€and€accused€him€of€murdering€that€person.€€They€drove€to€the€rockÏquarry€with€a€blanket€and€plastic€to€use€to€move€the€body€when€they€found€it.€€AfterÏwalking€around€that€area€for€a€while,€they€saw€a€police€helicopter€equipped€with€a€searchÏlight€and€hid.ÌÌà ¨ àà àBy€3:00€a.m.€on€November€15,€approximately€six€hours€after€Shannon€hadÏarrived€at€the€defendantððs€house,€the€defendant€and€Shannon€were€still€in€the€area€of€theÏrock€quarry.€€The€defendant€told€Shannon€to€return€to€his€car€and€he€would€go€on€to€work.€ÏThe€police€monitoring€the€events€found€Shannon€shortly€thereafter.€€About€one€hour€later,Ïthe€LaVergne€Police€Department€picked€up€the€defendant€at€his€house,€handcuffed€him,Ïand€returned€him€to€the€search€site€in€the€back€seat€of€a€patrol€car.€€When€they€arrived,Ïthe€handcuffs€were€removed,€but€the€defendantððs€belongings€were€taken€from€him.€Ð ¨9 26 ÐAccording€to€the€defendant,€he€spent€a€considerable€amount€of€the€morning€sitting€in€theÏback€of€the€patrol€car€and€did€not€feel€he€was€free€to€leave.€€At€a€pretrial€hearing,ÏDetective€E.€J.€Bernard€testified€he€did€not€tell€the€defendant€he€was€free€to€leave,€butÏneither€did€he€tell€him€he€must€remain€at€the€search€site.€€However,€at€trial,€DetectiveÏBernard€testified€that€he€did€tell€the€defendant€he€was€free€to€leave.ÌÌà ¨ àà àWhile€at€the€search€site€that€morning,€the€defendant€gave€a€statement€toÏDetective€Bernard.€€He€told€him€that€the€victim€had€visited€him€at€his€house€and€hadÏasked€him€to€go€with€her€to€the€rock€quarry€to€ð ðmake€out.ðð€€The€defendant€said€he€couldÏnot€go€with€her€because€he€was€caring€for€his€daughter,€who€was€sleeping€in€the€nextÏroom.€€The€defendant€left€the€room€to€check€on€his€daughter,€and€when€he€returned,€theÏvictim€was€gone.€€He€drove€to€the€rock€quarry€to€look€for€the€victim.€€When€he€arrived,€heÏsaw€ð ðvarious€individualsðð€there€and€hid€until€they€left.€€He€then€found€the€victim€dead€andÏused€a€rake€and€a€shovel€to€bury€her.€€According€to€Detective€Bernard,€the€defendantÏwalked€around€the€search€site€with€him€and€two€other€police€officers€in€an€attempt€to€leadÏthem€to€where€he€buried€the€victimððs€body.€€Later,€at€the€defendantððs€request,€a€policeÏofficer€called€an€attorney,€Mr.€Brad€Hornsby,€on€the€telephone€and€allowed€the€defendantÏto€talk€to€him.€€Mr.€Hornsby€arrived€at€the€search€site,€and€he€and€the€defendant€left€theÏsite€together.€€The€police€had€no€further€contact€with€the€defendant€until€his€arrest.ÌÌà ¨ àà àWithin€the€next€couple€of€days,€the€defendantððs€stepnephew,€MichaelÏThompson,€visited€the€defendant€at€his€house.€€Michael€had€previously€volunteered€toÏhelp€the€police€by€talking€to€the€defendant€in€order€to€elicit€information€about€the€victimððsÏdisappearance.€€Because€the€defendant€believed€his€house€was€bugged,€he€wrote€toÏMichael€on€pages€from€a€notepad€instead€of€talking€to€him.€€The€defendant€told€MichaelÏhe€had€left€a€rake€and€a€shovel€with€his€fingerprints€on€them€in€the€rock€quarry.€€MichaelÏsaid€he€would€retrieve€and€dispose€of€these€items€for€the€defendant,€so€the€defendantÏdrew€him€a€map€to€a€pit€in€the€rock€quarry€where€the€tools€would€supposedly€be€found.€Ð ¨9 26 ÐAfter€drawing€the€map€and€writing€other€directions€in€the€notepad,€the€defendant€burnedÏthe€notepadððs€used€pages.ÌÌà ¨ àà àMichael€reported€this€conversation€to€the€police.€€Following€the€directionsÏthe€defendant€gave€him,€Michael€led€the€police€to€a€pit€in€the€rock€quarry,€in€which€theÏvictimððs€body€was€found€buried€under€layers€of€debris.€€An€arrest€warrant€for€the€first„¼degree€murder€of€Charlotte€Scott€was€issued€for€the€defendant€on€November€18,€1994.€ÏAccording€to€the€autopsy€report,€the€victim€sustained€four€blows€to€the€head€by€a€firm,Ïhard€object.€€The€victimððs€chest€was€compressed€and€her€ribs€were€fractured€forty„fourÏtimes,€injuries€which€caused€the€victimððs€death.€€The€victimððs€body€was€then€stabbed€withÏa€knife€nine€times€and€her€breasts€were€amputated.€€The€victimððs€body€exhibited€noÏdefensive€wounds€or€any€sign€of€struggle.€€The€weapons€that€caused€the€victimððs€deathÏwere€not€recovered.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€first„degree€murder€in€January€1995.€€At€trialÏin€June€1995,€the€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€as€charged.€€The€trial€judge,€sitting€asÏthirteenth€juror,€granted€the€defendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€The€defendantððs€secondÏtrial€was€held€in€April€1996.€€Again,€the€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€first„degree€Ïmurder.€€Following€a€hearing,€a€life€sentence€was€imposed€on€the€defendant.ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.ó óÐ ˆ,€%( ÐÓ  Óà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€first€argues€that€his€retrial€violated€the€Double€JeopardyÏClause.€€Following€a€guilty€verdict€in€his€first€trial€in€June€1995,€the€defendant€filed€aÏMotion€for€Judgment€of€Acquittal€and€a€New€Trial.€€In€this€motion,€the€defendant€arguedÏthat€because€the€evidence€was€legally€insufficient,€in€that€it€did€not€prove€premeditation,Ïdeliberation,€venue,€or€that€the€defendant€was€the€perpetrator,€he€was€entitled€to€aÏjudgment€of€acquittal.€€In€the€alternative,€the€defendant€argued€that€he€was€entitled€to€aÏnew€trial€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€33€because€of€the€numerousÐ ¨9 26 ÐÑŸOÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑñnñÑŸOÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑñnññmñÑŸOÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑñmññlñÑŸOÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑñlññkñÑŸOÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑñkññhñÑŸOÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑñhññgñÑŸOÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑŸOÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑñgññfñÑŸOÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑñfññeñÑŸOÑÑ` ` ÑÑ  Ññeñprejudicial€errors€that€occurred€throughout€the€trial€and€because€the€weight€of€theÏevidence€showed€he€was€not€guilty€of€first„degree€murder.€€The€trial€judge€notified€theÏparties€via€letter€of€his€ruling€on€this€motion.€€In€his€letter,€the€trial€judge€stated,€inÏpertinent€part:ÌÒ PÒÒ°ŽÒÓÓà X àI€find€myself€in€the€position€that€I€disagree€with€the€jury€on€theÏweight€of€the€evidence€presented€on€the€elements€of€premeditationÏand€deliberation.€€I,€therefore,€find€it€necessary€to€grant€theÏdefendantððs€request€for€a€new€trial.€€I€specifically€overrule€the€requestÏfor€a€judgment€of€acquittal.ÌÌà X àHaving€made€the€determination€to€grant€the€motion€for€newÏtrial€as€the€13th€juror€I€would€find€it€appropriate€to€have€this€caseÏtransferred€to€another€court€for€the€retrial€of€this€matter€in€accordanceÏwith€Rule€33€on€the€request€of€either€party.ÌÌà X àI€will€draw€an€order€reflecting€the€courtððs€finding€and€notifyÏeach€party€of€its€execution.ÓZ>ÓÌÒP ÒThe€subsequent€order€stated:ÌÒ PÒÓÓÌà X àThis€court€having€considered€a€Motion€for€a€Judgment€ofÏAcquittal€and/or€Motion€for€New€Trial,€finds€it€necessary€to€grant€theÏdefendantððs€request€for€a€Motion€for€New€Trial€under€the€provisionsÏof€Rule€33(f)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€As€aÏ13th€juror€this€court€disagrees€with€the€jury€about€the€weight€of€theÏevidence€on€the€issues€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€and,Ïtherefore,€grants€the€defendantððs€request€for€a€new€trial€and€theÏtransfer€of€this€case€to€another€trial€court€for€the€trial€of€the€matter€onÏthe€request€of€either€party.ÌÓfAÓÓÓÌÒP ÒÓÓÌÒŽ°Òà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€filed€a€Motion€for€Specific€Findings,€in€which€he€asked€theÏtrial€court€to€make€specific€findings€that€there€was€no€evidence€submitted€as€to€venue,Ïpremeditation,€or€deliberation.€€The€defendant€also€requested€the€trial€court€ð ðto€reconsiderÏhis€previous€Motion€for€Judgment€of€Acquittal€and€dismiss€the€case€against€him.ðð€€Further,Ïthe€defendant€moved€for€permission€to€appeal€to€this€Court,€arguing€that€because€theÏState€failed€to€prove€venue,€that€the€defendant€committed€the€crime,€or€that€the€defendantÏhad€the€requisite€intent,€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause€would€bar€his€retrial.ÌÐ 09Ð/3 Ðà ¨ àà àThe€record€fails€to€reveal€an€order€addressing€the€defendantððs€Motion€forÏSpecific€Findings.€€The€trial€court€did€address€the€defendantððs€Motion€for€an€Appeal€byÏPermission,€however,€stating,€ð ðAs€to€the€Motion€for€an€Appeal€by€Permission,€afterÏreviewing€said€motion€the€Court€finds€at€the€time€this€Court€granted€defendantððs€motionÏfor€a€new€trial€it€was€granted€on€all€issues€and€therefore€denied€defendantððs€request€forÏappeal.ðð€€The€trial€court€also€stated,€ð ðFurther,€upon€request€of€the€State,€under€33€(f)€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€this€case€is€transferred€to€the€PresidingÏJudge,€the€Honorable€Don€Ash€for€assignment€to€another€Court€for€retrial.ððÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€sought€extraordinary€appeal€in€this€Court,€claiming€thatÏdouble€jeopardy€protections€barred€a€new€trial.€€This€Court€denied€the€defendantððsÏrequest.€€The€case€proceeded€to€the€new€trial,€after€which€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€ofÏguilt.€€The€defendant€now€argues€that€because€the€trial€court€granted€his€new€trial€motionÏð ðon€all€issues,ðð€double€jeopardy€protections€barred€retrial€of€this€case.ÌÌà ¨ àà àDouble€jeopardy€protections€are€implicated€when€the€evidence€is€found€toÏbe€legally€insufficient€to€support€a€defendantððs€conviction.€€òòTibbs€v.€Floridaóó,€457€U.S.€31,Ð `'  Ð41€(1982).€€Legal€insufficiency€ð ðmeans€that€the€governmentððs€case€was€so€lacking€that€itÏshould€not€have€even€been€submitted€to€the€jury.ðð€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòBurks€v.€United€Statesóó,Ð  +À!$ Ð437€U.S.€1€(1978)).€€To€contrast,€double€jeopardy€protections€are€not€implicated€when€aÏcourt,€sitting€as€a€thirteenth€juror,€decides€that€a€guilty€verdict€is€against€the€weight€of€theÏevidence€because€it€disagrees€with€the€juryððs€resolution€of€conflicting€evidence.€€òòId.óó€at€42.€Ð À0`'* ÐÌà ¨ àà àIn€his€Motion€for€Judgment€of€Acquittal€and€a€New€Trial,€the€defendantÏargued€he€was€entitled€to€a€judgment€of€acquittal€because€the€evidence€was€legallyÏinsufficient.€€In€the€alternative,€the€defendant€requested€a€new€trial€because€the€weightÏof€the€evidence€was€contrary€to€the€verdict.€€The€trial€court,€sitting€as€thirteenth€jurorÐ  :À04 Ðpursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€33(f),€agreed€that€the€weight€of€theÏevidence€was€contrary€to€the€verdict€and€thus€granted€the€defendant€a€new€trial.€ÏHowever,€the€trial€court€explicitly€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal,Ïthus€rejecting€the€defendantððs€argument€that€the€evidence€in€this€case€was€legallyÏinsufficient.€€As€such,€double€jeopardy€concerns€were€not€implicated€by€the€trial€courtððsÏorder.€€Nothing€changed€when€the€trial€court€later€stated€that€it€granted€the€defendantððsÏmotion€for€a€new€trial€ð ðon€all€issuesðð€because€the€defendantððs€basis€for€arguingÏentitlement€to€a€new€trial€was€that€the€weight€of€the€evidence€was€contrary€to€the€verdict,Ïwhich€does€not€implicate€double€jeopardy€concerns.€€Our€careful€review€of€the€recordÏreveals€nothing€even€suggestive€of€the€notion€that€the€trial€court€ever€determined€that€theÏconvicting€evidence€was€legally€insufficient.€Thus,€contrary€to€the€defendantððsÏcontentions,€the€second€trial€in€this€case,€which€is€what€the€defendant€himself€requested,Ïdid€not€violate€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.ó óÐ  #@ ÐÓ  Óà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€suppressÏthe€statement€he€made€to€Detective€Bernard€on€November€15,€1994,€at€the€search€site.€ÏHe€contends€that€at€the€time€he€gave€the€statement,€he€was€in€custody€and€had€not€beenÏread€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€The€defendant€also€contends€that€the€statement€should€beÐ  +À!$ Ðsuppressed€because€the€police€officers€knew€he€was€represented€by€counsel€at€the€timeÏhe€gave€the€statement.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€Fifth€Amendment€provides€the€right€to€counsel€at€any€police„initiatedÏcustodial€interrogation.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòEdwards€v.€Arizonaóó,€451€U.S.€477€(1981);€òòState€v.Ð €4 +. ÐHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€666€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Batesóó,€804€S.W.2d€868€(Tenn.€1991).€Ð `6-0 ÐòòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó€bars€the€admission€of€any€statements€elicited€from€the€defendantÐ @8à.2 Ðthrough€custodial€interrogation€unless€the€defendant,€prior€to€making€the€statement,€wasÐ  :À04 Ðщ9 ÑÑ,°ÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ññnñщ9 ÑÑ,°ÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ññnññmñщ9 ÑÑ,°ÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ññmññlñщ9 ÑÑ,°ÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ññlññkñщ9 ÑÑ,°ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑñkññhñœÑâ9 ÑÑX°ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑñhññgñœÑD ÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ññgñœwarned›€of€certain€rights€and€knowingly€waived€those€rights.€€384€U.S.€436€(1966).€Ïð ðCustodial€interrogationðð€is€defined€as€ð ðquestioning€initiated€by€law€enforcement€officersÏafter€a€person€has€been€taken€into€custody€or€otherwise€deprived€of€his€freedom€of€actionÏin€any€significant€way.ðð€€œòòIdóó.€at›€444.€€In€other€words,€òòMirandaóó€warnings€are€required€whenÐ ¨   Ða€suspect€has€been€formally€arrested€or€when€his€or€her€freedom€of€movement€has€beenÏrestrained€to€the€œdegree›€associated€with€a€formal€arrest.€€òòCalifornia€v.€Beheleróó,€463€U.S.Ð h`  Ð1121€(1983);€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€912€S.W.2d€756€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð H@  ÐÌà ¨ àà àIn€assessing€whether€an€individual€is€ð ðin€custody,ðð€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances€must€be€examined€to€determine€whether€a€reasonable€person€wouldÏconsider€his€or€her€freedom€of€movement€restrained€to€the€œdegree›€associated€with€formalÏarrest.€€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€937€S.W.2d€851€(Tenn.€1996).€€Factors€relevant€to€thisÐ ¨  Ðdetermination€include€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 ¨ àthe€time€and€location€of€the€œinterrogation;›€the€duration€and€character€of€theÏquestioning;€the€officerððs€tone€of€voice€and€general€demeanor;€the€suspectððsÏmethod€of€transportation€to€the€place€of€questioning;€the€number€of€policeÏofficers€present;€any€limitation€on€movement€or€other€form€of€restraintÏimposed€on€the€suspect€during€the€interrogation;€any€interactions€betweenÏthe€officer€and€the€suspect,€including€the€words€spoken€by€the€officer€to€theÏsuspect,€and€the€suspectððs€verbal€or€nonverbal€responses;€the€extent€toÏwhich€the€suspect€is€confronted€with€the€law€enforcement€officerððsÏsuspicions€of€guilt€or€evidence€of€guilt;€and€finally,€the€extent€to€which€theÏsuspect€is€made€aware€that€he€or€she€is€free€to€refrain€from€answeringÏquestions€or€to€end€the€interview€at€will.Ð ¨ ò"¨ ò" ÐÌÓd^ÓòòId.óó€at€855.Ð ¨* #& ÐÌà ¨ àà àHere,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€police€were€not€aware€the€defendant€hadÏretained€Mr.€Hornsby€until€after€he€had€been€transported€to€the€rock€quarry,€made€hisÏstatements€to€Detective€Bernard,€and€called€Mr.€Hornsby€to€pick€him€up.€€While€the€recordÏsupports€this€finding,€it€is€immaterial€to€the€disposition€of€this€issue€under€a€FifthÏAmendment€analysis.€€Rather,€the€dispositive€issue€is€whether€the€defendant€was€subjectÏto€a€police„initiated€custodial€interrogation€and€had€knowingly€waived€his€FifthÏñgñÑD ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑñgñœAmendment›€rights€at€the€time€he€made€his€statements€to€Detective€Bernard.ÌñgñÑD ÑÑÑÑ  ÑñgñÌñhñÑD ÑÑÑÑ  Ññhñà ¨ àà àUnder€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€we€must€conclude€that€the€ñpñÑOY ÑñpññpñѰÑñpññpñÑ  ÑñpñœñnñœÑß^ ÑÑÜÑÑ  ÑñnññmñœÑOY ÑѰÑÑ  ÑñmññlñœÑß^ ÑÑÜÑÑ  ÑñlññkñœÑD ÑÑÑÑ  ÑñkññpñÐ h=`6: ÐÑOY ÑѰÑÑ  ÑÌÌñpñdefendantððs›€Fifth€Amendment€rights€were€violated.€€At€4:00€a.m.,€the€defendant€wasÏhandcuffed,€placed€in€the€back€of€a€patrol€car,€and€driven€to€the€rock€quarry.€€His€personalÏbelongings€were€taken€from€him€as€he€was€escorted€by€œpolice›€officers€around€the€searchÏsite€and€questioned.€€Given€these€circumstances,€a€reasonable€person€would€not€feel€freeÏto€leave.œ×ƒ×Ý ƒ ˆÝÔ€ X+æXXX™±ÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€The€defendantððs€freedom€of€movement€had€been€restrained€to€the€œdegree›Ð ð@  Ðassociated€with€formal€arrest,€which€triggered€the€need€for€òòMirandaóó€warnings€under€theÐ Ô$  ÐFifth€Amendment.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòBeheleróó,€463€U.S.€at€1121.€€Unfortunately,€however,€theÐ  ð Ðdefendant€had€not€been€informed€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€That€being€so,€the€defendantððsÐ l¼ Ðstatement€to€Detective€Bernard€was€obtained€in€violation€of€his€Fifth€Amendment€rights,Ïand€it€should€have€been€œsuppressed.ñjñ›ñjññiñ€€Moreover,€we€believe€that€the€evidence€does€notÏjustify€a€conclusion€that€the€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€ñiññjññiñresonableñiññjññjñreasonableñjññiñ€doubt.ñiññjñ›ñjñÌÓ  Óò òÌIII.ó óÐ tÄ ÐÓ  Óà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€suppressÏstatements€he€made€to€his€son,€Shannon,€and€to€his€stepnephew,€Michael.€€As€supportÏfor€his€argument,€he€claims€Shannon€and€Michael€were€acting€as€agents€of€the€police€atÏthe€time€œhe›€œtalked›€with€them.ÌñrññrñÌñsññsñà ¨ àà àThe€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€attaches€only€after€the€adversarialÏjudicial€process€has€begun.€€òòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€669€(citing€òòMichigan€v.€Jacksonóó,Ð +d&* Ð475€U.S.€436€(1986);€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€593€S.W.2d€280€(Tenn.€1980)).€€ð ðIn€Tennessee,Ð à,0(, Ðthe€adversarial€judicial€process€is€initiated€at€the€time€of€the€filing€of€the€formal€charge,Ïsuch€as€an€arrest€warrant,€indictment,€presentment,€or€preliminary€hearing€in€cases€whereÏa€warrant€was€not€obtained€prior€to€the€arrest.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Here,€the€defendantððs€conversationsÐ D2”-2 Мwithññ€ññ›€œhisñ€ñ€ñ€ñ›€œson,ñ{ñ€ñ{ñ›€œShannon,ñ|ñ€ñ|ñ›€œoccurredñ}ñ€ñ}ñ›€œonñ~ñ€ñ~ñ›€œNovember€›€œ11€›€œandñwñ€ñwñ›€œñyñNovemberñyññyñNovemberñyññxñ€ñxñ›€œ14,ñzñ€ñzñ›€and€his€œÐ  4`/4 ÐñqñÑ` °ÑѰ,Ññqñconversation›€with€his€stepnephew,€Michael,€occurred€some€time€between€November€15Ïand€November€17.€€An€arrest€warrant€was€issued€for€the€defendant€on€November€18,Ïafter€the€defendantððs€conversations€with€Shannon€and€Michael.€€Thus,€the€defendantððsÏSixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€had€not€attached€at€the€time€of€his€statements.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€concedes€that€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€doesÏnot€attach€until€formal€charges€are€filed,€but€he€urges€this€Court€to€apply€the€SixthÏAmendment€to€circumstances€in€which€the€defendant€becomes€the€focus€of€a€policeÏinvestigation.׃×Ý ƒ ˆÝÔ€ X+æXX X+æÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Given€the€clear€line€of€authority,€including€United€States€Supreme€CourtÐ À` Ðauthority,€we€decline€to€do€so.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòPayne€v.€Johnsonóó,€2€Tenn.€Cas.€(Shannon)€Ð Œ, Ð542,€543€(1877)(intermediate€appellate€courts€have€no€authority€to€disregard€higherÏcourtsðð€precedent).ÌÌÓ  Óò òIV.ó óÐ ¼ \ ÐÓ  Óà ¨ àà àFinally,€the€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€ÏThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€failed€to€establish€that€he€was€the€perpetratorÏand€that€the€victim€was€killed€after€premeditation€and€deliberation.ÌÌà ¨ àà àA€guilty€verdict€rendered€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judgeÏaccredits€the€testimony€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses,€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€theÏpresumption€of€innocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€Thus,Ð \-ü#( Ðwhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€we€must€reviewÏthe€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution€in€determining€whether€ð ðòòanyóóÐ ô0”', Ðrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweighÐ Œ4,+0 Ðor€re„evaluate€the€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€proof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferƒ¼ences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ð @506 Ð1978).Ð  7\28 ЇÓ  Óò òA.ó óÐ ° ÐÓ  Óà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€admitted€to€using€the€victimððs€ATM€card€shortly€after€theÐ 7h28 Ðvictim€disappeared.€€The€evidence€showed€that€someone€attempted€eight€separate€ATMÏtransactions,€three€of€which€were€aborted€for€insufficient€funds,€on€the€victimððs€account.€ÏThe€evidence€also€revealed€that€the€defendant€knew€that€the€victim€ð ðdisappearedðð€onÏOctober€16,€even€though€the€victimððs€family,€who€discovered€her€missing,€did€not€reportÏher€missing€until€October€18.€€Just€days€after€the€victimððs€disappearance,€the€defendantÏhad€a€red€scratch€across€his€neck.ÌÌà ¨ àà àMoreover,€the€defendant€told€inconsistent€stories€to€various€people€atÏdifferent€times.€€On€October€19,€in€his€initial€interview€with€the€police,€the€defendant€statedÏthe€last€time€he€saw€the€victim€was€in€September€1994.€€On€November€6,€he€confided€inÏhis€brother,€Danny,€that€he€and€the€victim€were€at€the€rock€quarry€in€the€early€morning€ofÏOctober€16€and€that€he€buried€the€victim€there.€€In€a€videotaped€interview€with€a€televisionÏstation€some€time€between€November€7€and€November€14,€the€defendant€deniedÏknowing€anything€about€the€victimððs€disappearance.€€On€November€11,€the€defendant€toldÏhis€son,€Shannon,€that€he€did€not€believe€the€victim€was€dead€but€that€she€had€merelyÏð ðrun€away.ðð€€When€he€talked€with€Shannon€again€on€November€14,€the€defendant€deniedÏknowing€anything€about€where€the€victimððs€body€might€be€located,€but€he€said€he€knewÏwhere€someone€elseððs€body€was€buried€in€the€rock€quarry.€€Yet€just€hours€later,€theÏâ âdefendant€told€Detective€Bernard€a€story€similar€to€what€he€told€his€brother,€Danny,€i.e.,Ð X6ø,2 Ðthat€he€had€buried€the€victim€at€the€rock€quarry.׃×Ý ƒ ˆÝÔ€ XÏiXX XÏiÔòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р`  Ðâ âÌà ¨ àà àFurther,€the€defendant€accompanied€Shannon€to€the€rock€quarry€to€searchÏfor€a€body€and€further€conceal€it€from€the€authorities€with€plastic€and€a€blanket.€€He€alsoÏasked€his€stepnephew,€Michael,€to€dispose€of€a€rake€and€a€shovel€that€he€left€at€the€rockÏquarry€and€that€supposedly€had€his€fingerprints€on€them.€€Following€the€directions€theÏdefendant€gave€him,€his€stepnephew€led€the€authorities€to€a€pit€in€the€rock€quarry,€inÏwhich€the€victimððs€body€was€found.€€Considering€the€totality€of€this€evidence€in€the€lightÏmost€favorable€to€the€State,€a€rational€jury€could€have€concluded,€on€the€evidenceÏpresented€to€it,€that€the€defendant€was€responsible€for€the€victimððs€death.ÌÌÓ  Óò òB.ó óÐ $Ä ÐÓ  Óà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€also€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€as€to€theÏelements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€Premeditation€requires€proof€that€theÏdefendant€had€a€previously€formed€design€or€intent€to€kill.€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„210(b)(2)Ï(1991);€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144Ð `$ Ð(Tenn.€1992).€€Deliberation€requires€a€showing€that€the€defendant€had€some€time€toÏreflect€and€that€his€mind€was€free€of€impulse€and€passion€prior€to€the€killing.€€T.C.A.€Ìðð€39„13„210(b)(1);€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€540.€€The€elements€of€premeditation€andÐ Ä)d $ Ðdeliberation€are€questions€for€the€jury€that€may€be€established€by€proof€of€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€killing.€€òòId.óó€at€539.€€Several€factors€tend€to€support€theÐ \-ü#( Ðexistence€of€these€elements,€including€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€an€unarmedÏvictim;€the€particular€cruelty€of€the€killing;€declarations€by€the€defendant€of€an€intent€to€kill;Ïevidence€of€procurement€of€a€weapon;€preparations€before€the€killing€for€concealment€ofÐ À2`). Ðthe€crime;€and€calmness€immediately€after€the€killing.€€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,Ð `  Ð660€(Tenn.€1997).ÌÌà ¨ àà àHere,€the€victim€was€a€seventy„two„year„old€woman.€€The€defendantÏadmitted€being€with€the€victim€just€prior€to€her€death.€€The€defendant€also€admittedÏburying€the€victim€under€debris€in€a€pit€at€the€rock€quarry.€€No€blood€was€found€in€theÏdefendantððs€residence,€the€defendantððs€car,€or€the€victimððs€residence,€suggesting€that€theÏvictim€was€killed€at€the€rock€quarry.€€The€rock€quarry€is€a€relatively€remote€location,€a€factÏwhich€could€support€findings€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.Ð À` ÐWilliamsóó,€784€S.W.2d€660€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).Ð Œ, ÐÌà ¨ àà àThe€victim€sustained€four€blows€to€the€head€by€a€firm,€hard€object.€ÏAccording€to€the€medical€examiner,€these€injuries€would€not,€by€themselves,€cause€death,Ïbut€they€would€be€sufficient€to€stun€an€individual€or€cause€unconsciousness.€€The€victimððsÏchest€was€compressed€and€her€ribs€were€fractured€forty„four€times,€injuries€consistentÏwith€being€run€over€by€a€motor€vehicle.€€The€nature€of€the€victimððs€death,€that€she€wasÏlikely€stunned€or€knocked€unconscious€and€then€run€over€by€a€car,€indicate€that€theÏperpetrator€had€ample€time€to€reflect€on€his€actions€and€that€he€intended€his€actions€toÏkill€the€victim.€€The€assault€on€the€victim€did€not€end€there,€however.€€Post„mortem,€theÏvictimððs€body€was€stabbed€with€a€knife€nine€times€and€her€breasts€were€amputated.€€TheÏvictimððs€body€exhibited€no€defensive€wounds€or€any€sign€of€struggle,€indicating,€in€theÏmedical€examinerððs€opinion,€that€the€victim€was€unable€to€defend€herself€or€was€taken€byÏsurprise.ÌÌà ¨ àà àConstruing€this€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€a€rationalÏjury€could€have€concluded,€on€the€facts€presented€to€it,€that€the€defendant,€withoutÏpassion€or€provocation€and€with€a€cool€purpose,€consciously€engaged€in€the€conductÏcausing€the€victimððs€death.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€502€(Tenn.Ð ä9„06 Ð1997)(evidence€that€defendant€hit€victim€with€a€board€and€then€retrieved€a€secondÏweapon,€a€knife,€to€continue€attack€is€probative€of€premeditation).€€Therefore,€theÏevidence€in€this€record€is€sufficient€to€establish€premeditation€and€deliberation.ÌÌÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó óÐ 0 ÐÓ  Óà ¨ àà àIn€sum,€retrial€of€the€defendant€did€not€violate€the€constitutional€protectionsÏagainst€double€jeopardy.€€Moreover,€the€State€presented€sufficient€evidence€to€prove€thatÏthe€defendant€was€the€perpetrator€and€that€he€killed€the€victim€with€premeditation€andÏdeliberation.€€Finally,€while€the€trial€court€properly€admitted€into€evidence€the€statementsÏthe€defendant€made€to€his€son€and€his€stepnephew,€the€statement€the€defendant€madeÏto€Detective€Bernard€on€November€15,€1994,€violated€the€defendantððs€Fifth€AmendmentÏright€against€self„incrimination€and€should€have€been€suppressed.€€Accordingly,€weÏremand€for€a€new€trial€without€introduction€of€the€statement€given€to€Detective€Bernard.€ÏÌÓÓÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à_______________________________Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€Judge